Case ID: ad_269/html/0824-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Martin, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ruth H. Van Court, Respondent, v. Benjamin F. Jay et al., Individually and as Copartners under the Name of B. F. Jay & Company, Appellants.
   Martin, P. J.

(dissenting). The. agreement sued on may not be read as imposing upon the defendants an absolute agreement to pay a minimum royalty in any event; the obEgation is to pay the minimum royalty named or suffer the revocation of the Ecense. (Wing v. Ansonia Clock Co., 102 N. Y. 531; Ebert v. Loewenstein, 42 App. Div. 109.) The motion to dismiss the complaint should have been granted.

Untermyer, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ., concur in decision; Martin, P. J , dissents in opinion.

Order affirmed, with $20-costs and disbursements, with leave to the defendants to answer within ten days after service of order, on payment of said costs. No opinion. [See post, p. 843.]