Harlow v. Feder

California Court of Appeal Feb 24, 1928 No. Docket No. 4890.Published

Before: Stephens

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed a judgment granting injunctive relief and an accounting against the defendant for breach of contract, holding that the nature of the injury to the plaintiff's property and ideas constituted irreparable harm, rendering the defendant's solvency immaterial.

Issues

Whether the plaintiff had an adequate remedy at law precluding injunctive relief.
Whether the insolvency of the defendant must be pleaded or proved to obtain an injunction for irreparable injury to property.
Whether the trial court erred in denying a motion for nonsuit and in its evidentiary rulings.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The action is more than an action in damages based upon a contract. It is to prevent further wrongful use of property and information which was the subject of a contract and might well be far greater than accrued damages.”

“It is the nature of the injury, and not the incapacity of the party to respond in damages, which determines the right.”

“There is competent evidence tending to support each and every finding made.”

STEPHENS, J., pro tem.

This cause relates to certain alleged violations of a contract which we here recite in full:

“Agreement.

“Made and entered this 7th day of November, 1922, by and between John Harlow, of Ocean Park, county of Los

[437]

Angeles, state of California, hereinafter called the ‘first party,’ and Milton Feder, of Los Angeles, county of Los Angeles, state of California, hereinafter called the ‘second party,’ witnesseth:

“Whereas the first party is the inventor of improvements in apparatus for making moving portraits, for which he has applied for U. S. letters patent, Ser. 424,404, filed November 16, 1920, and

“Whereas, both parties are desirous of exploiting said invention and placing the same on the market.

“Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter expressed, they agree as follows:

“The second party agrees to secure a location in Los Angeles, California, and engage the first party at a salary of two hundred dollars ($200.00) per month, for a term of three (3) months, and furthermore agrees to have manufactured apparatus containing said invention within the next six' (6) months to a number of not less than twenty-five (25).

“The first party agrees to serve as demonstrator and instructor to purchasers and prospective purchasers how to operate said machines.

‘ ‘ The second party agrees to pay to the first party ten per cent (10%) of the retail selling price of said machines up to the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000), and as soon as the ten thousand dollars ($10,000) are paid to the first party, the first party agrees to execute a legal assignment conveying the entire right, title and interest in and to said invention, and the patent to be obtained therefor, to the second party, provided, however, that the said ten thousand dollars ($10,000) be paid to the first party within six (6) months as hereinafter provided.

‘ ‘ The first party also agrees to furnish to the second party all blue-prints, models, drawings, etc., that may be helpful in the manufacture of said machines and also to furnish said location with all his equipment now in his Ocean Park studio.

Harlow v. Feder

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief