Schmoyer v. Van Hosen
Citations
- 111 Kan. 759
- 208 P. 554
- 1922 Kan. LEXIS 341
Syllabus
<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Sale of Patent Right — Contract in Violation of Provisions of Statute. A contract by which one party undertakes to sell to the other the exclusive right for five years to sell within a specified territory an article a patent for which had been applied for but not issued is one for the sale of a patent right within the meaning of the statute regulating such sales.</p> <p>2. Same — Patent Not Yet Issued — Statute Applicable. Such a contract is invalid within the provisions of the statute forbidding the sale of a patent right unless a copy of the patent has been filed with the clerk of the district court, notwithstanding the impossibility of meeting that requirement.</p> <p>3. Same — Requirement of Statute Not Confined to Negotiable Paper. The statutory requirement that any obligation in writing for which a patent right forms the consideration must contain the words, “Given for a patent right,” while intended primarily to prevent negotiable instruments given for patent rights from passing into the hands of innocent holders, is not confined in its operation to negotiable paper. And it is held that the omission of such words in the contract here involved constituted a violation of , the statute.</p> <p>4. Same — Assignment of Certificate of Deposit — Within the Operation of the Statute. The assignment in payment for a patent right of a part of a certificate of'deposit is within the operation of the statute requiring any obligation in writing for which a patent right forms the consideration to have inserted therein the words “Given for a patent right.”</p> <p>5. Same — Contract Not Within Operation of Blue-shy Law. A written contract undertaking to sell a patent right is not within the operation of that part of the blue-sky law requiring a permit from the bank commissioner for the sale of speculative securities, “securities” being defined as “stock certificates, shares, bonds, debentures, certificates of participation, contracts, contra
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that “because pre-award damage claims are considered to have been submitted to arbitration, [the arbitrator’s] silence on the interest claim is deemed to be a decision not to award the interest”
- “The decision whether to award preaward, prejudgment interest as an element of damages is reserved as a matter of the arbitrator’s discretion.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Mason
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.