Opinion ID: 1483004
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Liability of Pure Carbonic, Inc.

Text: In the earlier parts of this opinion  dealing with the main appeal and with the Harrisburg liquefiers  we have had no thought as to whether both of the defendants were liable for the royalties found due because that issue involves facts and legal principles entirely foreign to those issues considered hereinbefore. The cross-appellants contend that Pure Carbonic, Inc., is not liable for royalties because it was not a party to the original license (which was with Pure Carbonic Company of America) or to the assignment of the license (which was to Carbonic Dispensing, Inc.). Cross-appellee does not claim that Pure was a party either to the original license or to the assignment. It bases the liability of Pure upon either of two propositions: (1) that the corporate relation of Pure to Dispensing and other corporations is such that it would be a fraud upon it not to hold Pure liable; and (2) that it can take advantage of a provision in a contract between Pure and Pure Carbonic Company of America  such contract provision being (it claims) for its benefit.