
    Lewis Bennett, Respondent, v. Iron Clad Manufacturing Company, Appellant.
    
      Contract ^-.action for breach.of contract to pay royalties’onpatentedarticle^-failure * . ■ , ... to prove, manufacture and sale., .. , " :
    Appeal from-'a judgment óf the Supreme Court, - entéréd "in!"the Herkimer co,unty'clerk’s office December 7¡1907, üpori thg'Vérdiet’of á júry, árid'also' from' an'ordep entered December 30,1907, denying a "motion for a new trial upon the 1 minutes;*' 1 A1 : '" ; ' ' '■" >' 1 ' ■
    
   Kruse, J,:

The plaintiff is the'patentee of certain metal seamless' baskets. He made'a contract with the'-defendant grantirig.lt theright to make-and-séll the"" saíne; arid the defendant agreed to paydherfe’for is ñ loyalty a-fixed price.: It Is" contended by. the plaintiff that the def ehdarit made - arid sold' baskets; 'for Which thexoyalty-bas1.not been paid. 1 The’acti'on’is brought to recover the Same, and a verdict was; rendered in plaintiff’s favor for the sum -óf §540. From the judgmeht entered thereon;-and the order-denying 'the ¡defendant’» motion' for a 'new ' trial,-¡the defendant appeals. The casé has -been befóte ds ‘once before, arid á "■ judgment-in-favor of the plaintiff, was reversed -and' a¡ nevr trial granted. (Bennett v. Iron Clad Manufacturing Co. 121 App. Div. 133.) ' The’crdeial faCt'id. controversy.hetwéeñ-these patties isnot-the number ¡of - seamless baskets' Which ’ the defendant manufactured and sold. That does-not-seem to be-in dispute;'but1 ' whether .any. of -them, and-if-so how many,--were Of-the kind1 add ''embodied the-' spfeeiaL:feáturés/;arid; are covered:by, trié ¡contract, between the''-parties.'" The ; defendant, contends, and has contended* all the way through ¡this litigation, that " since -the* judgment - in. the action between • these same *' parties declaring the1 con- f tract forfdited- add- -canceled '(Bennett v. Iron Clad Manufacturing Co. 90 App. Div. 611)4it has hot'.-manufactured Or-sold" metal baskets-of1 thé¡ description :or ’• kind*covered?by the. cohtfactv." T'dO'dot’ see -that "the-plaintiff’s'case is ady ’ stronger than-it was-when-here before,-‘add We'reversed thé 'jtldgmedt. "Thefe is 1 more evidence of the'same kind, but ¡it-is lacking ¡id'probative’'force ¡Upon the"' qnestiotim’dispute; ■ Theessédtial-eleíirent 'sribwínig-’that'th'é ‘defendant-irianu-' * factdted; add sold baskets embodying the 'special- features’riamed-iri’tiie’contract,-1 is whriting." I think the- judgment should be. reversed, and 4'¿ew’tnal1 granted'.' *' AH'- concurred; excfept. Williams,. J., - who* dissented: - Judgment* " and '-'orderh reversed and new trial'ordetedp with?-costs to hppellaht td"’abide''event, tip6nni" questions bf lakh anddactu i-<-i - ■ * tli A A .Avma> ,;i .suiniv-iLMiJoTb wa  