OCR Text |
Show A PUMP GUN; LOVE AND LAW In the case of Nellie Rnt gtT1. art against John Douglass Pederson, a suit to settle a question of equity in an alleged co-partnership between the plaintiffs deceased husband and. the defendant In tho ownership of a patent on a valuable shotgun, upon which a bevy royalty is now being paid by the Remington Arms company. com-pany. Judge Howell haa rendered a decision in which he says. "It U ordered, therefore, that in ao-cordancc ao-cordancc with the prayer of the plaintiffs plain-tiffs complaint, tho defendant be required re-quired to account to her for all royalties royal-ties received from the Remington Arm3 company on account of the sale of what Is known as the "Remington pump gun.' " There Is a little romance connected "with tbo case, It appearing in court that the plaintiff and defendant were desperately In love with each otner nt one time, and that because of this love there had been considerable bus-; bus-; Iness laxity exhibited on the part o. the two, and that it was cot an eosy matter to determine Just what was the contract between plaintiffs former for-mer huaband and the defendant and I 'between the two parties to the action. The court. In making a summary of this pha6e of tho question, says la part; "It is finally ingeniously argued br ; counsel that defendant should be held I to his agreement because, it was ! simply the extravagant promise of a lover to bis sweetheart and not In any sense a business arrangement. It appears from the numerous and lengthy epistles introduced in evl-1 evl-1 denco as having passed leween the I parties to this suit that, after Ben-i Ben-i nett's denth and prior to plaintiffs remarriage to her present husband, a I violent love, apparently mutually re-! re-! clprocated, took possossl-n of both i plaintiff and defendant No matter with what seriousness the phllosoph or might ponder over the sinuous, I uneven and unhappy course of this love story, or no matter with what delight tie psychologist might seek to unravel the tangled strains of. It, 1 nor how it could be woven by tho novelist Into a romance, I am. of I course, only concerned with its legal j phases. Fortunately the courts are not often called upon to enforce the I promises which are said to be made I between lovers. The fond swain's hyperbolical desire to lay the wealth of the world at bis loved one's feet la meat fr the poet and the novelist, not the prosaic Judge. Occasionally, however, unwillingly the courts are nevertheless compelled to draw tho line between what is simply love's fantasy and cold, hard business between be-tween people In love, and fortunately the task Is not difficult, because in the crucible of common sense it is easy to separate- them If, for Instance, In-stance, tho lovesick youth, during a spasm of delirium, promise- the equally equal-ly lovesick maiden that he will give her the silvery moon for a brooch to embellish her lily white throat, or ths lady fair in a moment of ecstajr swears she will pluck from the sky a shining diamond to bedazzle her lover's manly hand or shirt bosom, a court of equity would not seek to enforce en-force either promise, nor would a court of law givo damages for the failure to perform either. But if a lover or a beloved happen to own some property or other valuahle right and tho other promises to give a sum of money In exchange for It, then that promise can be enforced In a court of Justice, in tho absence of fraud or dureas (which love. In and of itself, cannot he legally considered), consider-ed), and It matters not that in making mak-ing the bargain the lover or beloved agrees to give a great dal more because the transaction w-aa looked at tbrought the eyes of love, or that it was not looked at at all, the parties being, as tradition has It. blinded by love. "So here, it may be. that if the defendant de-fendant had not been In love with the plaintiff he would havt agreed bo treat her exactly aa he would have treated her husband had he lived (queer promise that) and give her the same amount of moDey and royalties, royal-ties, had he not been In love with her, but she had an Interest in her deceased husband's contract, and to benefit himself by making the contract con-tract with the Remington Arma Co., he had to obtain hor release of that interest, and when in order to obtain ob-tain that release he promised to give her $1500 and one-fourth of thlrtr-flve thlrtr-flve cents on every gun manufactured, he must live up to his contract. "It may be, too, that he was not altogether disinterested in his lore for plaintiff, for he waa ever so much more ardent before he secured . the release than he was aterwards, bat whether he was madly In love or only pretending to bo, he made a legal contract with the lady concerning the gun in question herein, and he must fulfill it even if he escapes a great many other promiseo he made her and never kept. .'Jt is ordered, therefore, that in accordance with, tho prayer of plaintiffs plain-tiffs complaint, th dofondant be required to acoount to bor for all royalties roy-alties received from the Remington Arms company on account of the sale of what is known 'as the 'Remington pump run-' " |