Armstrong

Okeh Phonograph Corp. v. Armstrong

Good Law
63 F.2d 636·1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 3511
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 7, 1933No. 6984California495 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Appeal from a decree denying appellant’s application for preliminary injunction and granting appellees’ motion to dismiss the bill of complaint for want of equity apparent on the face of the bill.

The bill alleged that appellee Armstrong entered into a contract with appellant for exclusive services in making records; that, by virtue of appellant’s exercising certain-renewal options, the entire contract was continued in force until May 7, 19‘33; that a-covenant embodied in the contract bound Armstrong to record for no one else during its term and for three months thereafter ;. and that, in violation of the agreement, Armstrong had entered into an engagement with appellee R. C. A. Victor Company for his services from May 8, 1932.

Appellees contend, -among other things (1) that the right to the services under the agreement, which is made a part of the bill, ended May 7,1982; and/or (2) that the contract is so indefinite and uncertain in this respect that equitable relief should be denied.

The period of engagement is defined in the contract as “the time and any extensions thereof embraced by the date hereof [April 22, 1927] and the number of years herein-above stated subsequent to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.