
The Federal Reporter (Volume 222); With Key-Number Annotations
Paperback
Currently unavailable to order
ISBN10: 1235142817
ISBN13: 9781235142819
Publisher: General Books
Pages: 576
Weight: 2.24
Height: 1.17 Width: 7.44 Depth: 9.69
Language: English
ISBN13: 9781235142819
Publisher: General Books
Pages: 576
Weight: 2.24
Height: 1.17 Width: 7.44 Depth: 9.69
Language: English
This historic book may have numerous typos, missing text, images, or index. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. 1915. Not illustrated. Excerpt: ... the hoot and shoe manufacturers, and have made it their general policy and practice to refuse to furnish such machines to any and all boot and shoe manufacturers who fail to comply with the terms or spirit of the provisions of said lease and license agreements, and to otherwise injure them. Defendants, in pursuance of their general purpose, inserted in and made a part of each lease and license agreement provisions reserving to themselves the right to forthwith terminate and cancel all existing lease and license agreements between them and the boot and shoe manufacturers, If the latter should fail or cease to use exclusively and to their full capacity machines leased or controlled by defendants, thereby prohibiting said manufacturers, not only from using competing shoe machinery manufactured in the United States, but also from using any such machinery manufactured in foreign countries and imported here for sale or lease. There is no proof that the United Shoe Company has enforced its leases in any arbitrary or unreasonable manner. On the whole, it seems to have been moderate with reference to such enforcements, and the number of cases in which anything in the way of a forfeiture has been demanded has been so small that, on looking over the great mass of the operations of the United Shoe Company, such enforcements have been so few as to be practically negligible, and there is no evidence that the duplicate parts, extras, and other incidentals furnished by the United Shoe Company have been sold at exorbitant prices fixed by it, or that the cost involved in the return of machinery has in any way approximated its original cost, unless, possibly, in some exceptional instances which have not caught the eye of the court. We do not think the case as developed ...