Neostyle Envelope Company c1909 - Stamp Community Forum

Thanks Randy.
Unable to access any of those, I belong to JStor, they had nothing.

Errors occur re OCR recognition

The "Hook" I was thinking perhaps the paper washer and string device, but I cannot see how that may have been "secretive"
I wonder if it was the brass "split pin" device?

PULP AND PAPER MAGAZINE
January 1, 1915.

In the case of Barber-Ellis vs. the Neostyle Envelope
Company, the Barber-Ellis Company of Brantford
received from the Envelope Company a license for the
manufacture and sale throughout Canada of envelopes
invented by the latter. The envelope was of the style
now much used, with a hook to secure the flap at one
end. The representations made to the Barber-Ellis
Company when the license was granted were, among,
others, that it was safe, secure and secret and would
carry through the mails two ounces for one cent. By
the Post Office regulations any package to be carried
at that rate must be prepared so as to be opened for
inspection and closed again without injury. On the
patented envelope in question being submitted to the
Post Oftice authorities it was ruled that the matter
contained thei-ein must pay letter postage. The Bar-
ber-Ellis Company thereupon notified the envelope
company of this and claimed that the license conti'aet
should be rescinded. The respondents refused to con-
cede this and undertook to furnish an envelope which
would be within the patent and would satisfy the
postal authorities. They did produce an envelope
which the authorities accepted, but the appellants re-
fuseii to continue the contract, and an action for dam-
ages was brought. The trial judge held that the modi-
fied envelope was outside the terms of the contract
and disiiiissed the action. His judgment was reversed
by the Api)ellate Division, which held that it was with-
in the sjH'citicatious for the patent and covered by the
contract The respondents, after the contract was re-
pudiated, had gi anted another license for part of Can-
ada to <:n<)tiier comjiany and the Appellate Division
held tha: they had a right to do so. Judgment was
reserved by the Supreme Court.