Patrizi v. McAninch

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that royalty-payment provision was consideration for illegal provisions and thus they were “so interdependent and indivisible that they cannot be separated and must fall together”
• holding that royalty-payment provision was consideration for illegal provisions and thus they were \so interdependent and indivisible that they cannot be separated and must fall together\
• “It is obvious that there is ample valid consideration to support the promise sued on; yet, if, to the abundance of valid consideration, there has been added a leaven of what is illegal, the whole contract is tainted.” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named Patrizi v. McAninch

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• Patrizi v. McAninch
  Court of Appeals of Texas· 1953-05-20· cited 3×