Golden State & Miners' Iron Works v. Angell
Citations
- 89 Cal. 643
- 27 P. 65
- 1891 Cal. LEXIS 872
Syllabus
<p>Patent Right — Improvement by Superintendent — Title oe Corporation — Execution — Supplementary Proceedings — Enforcement of Trust against Receiver.—Where one who was superintendent, director, and stockholder of a manufacturing corporation agreed, on behalf of the corporation, with an owner of swamp-land to make the latter a dredging-machine, with certain improvements which the superintendent had in mind, and which he thought would be valuable, and that if the purchaser would pay for building the machine, and try it, and if it proved a success that the corporation and purchaser would each have one half-interest in any patent that could be obtained for the improvements, and the corporation and purchaser, in pursuance of the agreement, paid in equal shares the entire expense of procuring patents, which were taken in the name of the superintendent, who claimed no interest therein on his own account, there is sufficient proof of a contract between the superintendent and the corporation by which the latter was to own one half of the patents obtained, and it can enforce an assignment of one half interest therein against a receiver appointed at the instance of execution creditors of the superintendent, to whom he was compelled to assign that interest upon proceedings supplementary to execution.</p> <p>Ed. — Contract to Secure Patents — Consideration — Sharing Expenses. — The paying by the corporation of half the expense of procuring the patents is a “prejudice suffered,” within the meaning of section 1605 of the Civil Code, and is a sufficient consideration for the contract, by which the inventor agreed to give a one-half interest in the patents to be procured to the corporation for paying part of the expenses of procuring them.</p> <p>Id. —Rights of Corporation—Objection of Creditors of Superintendent— Consideration — Resolution of Directors — Certainty and Fairness of Contract. — In an action by the corporation against a receiver of the inventor, who was appointed by
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- concluding that Rule 8.4(a)(4) is “among the most serious violations with which a lawyer can be charged”
- rejecting an uncontested petition for voluntary discipline where the admitted facts strongly suggested a violation of Rule 8.4 but the petitioner declined to admit such a violation and the Bar failed to address the matter
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: McFarland
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.