Case ID: nys_55/html/1143-08.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BEEKMAN, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

McLEAN AIR-PUMP & MACHINE CO., Respondent, v. PETERS et al., Appellants.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    January 23, 1899.)
    Action by McLean Air-Pump & Machine Company against William K. Peters and another. Edward Goldschmidt, for appellants. Everett D. Barlow, for respondent.
   BEEKMAN, P. J.

We think that the plain meaning of the written agreement upon which suit is brought is that the payment of the minimum royalty of $25 a month was not to commence until the patent had been actually issued. Prior to that time the defendants were hound to pay only a percentage upon sales actually made. The agreement with respect to the payment of the minimum royalty, as it is called, is, in terms, conditioned upon the manufacture and sale by the defendants of the patented article after the issuing of the patent. Nor is there any occasion for an effort to put any other construction upon the instrument, as the stipulation in question was a reasonable one, inasmuch as the granting of the patent tended to increase the commercial value of the invention, and therefore a larger measure of return from it might legitimately be expected. The court below therefore erred in holding that such minimum royalties were payable from the date of the contract between the parties. The judgment in favor of the plaintiff must, therefore, be reversed. Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellants to abide the event.