Schumacher Wall Board Corp. v. Buttonlath Manufacturing Co.

This is a case where the plaintiff sued the defendant for the sum of practically $9,000, claimed to be due under a license agreement. The suit is defended on the ground that the plaintiff violated the agreement. Plaintiff admitted the violation, but claimed the violation was not material. The court decided that it was material, and gave judgment to defendant for costs.

The questions, whether the violation was material, and whether defendant could be charged with an implied waiver, are the principal questions to be determined on this appeal.

The case was ably and carefully tried. The agreement was made to settle certain litigation which had been heard in the federal court.

The superior court has decided that the violation is material, and we can see no reason to declare the finding wrong. Considered in terms of money, it is indisputable to say that if a man must pay $10,000 for something that another obtains for nothing, the man who pays must lose something, and that is certainly material to the majority of people.

The situation was summarized by the trial judge as follows, and we think it is sound: pendent upon the undertaking on the part of the plaintiff’s predecessors not to…