That this was the understanding of the parties is demonstrated by the immediate assumption of actual control by petitioner and indirectly by its sole shareholder. While it is true that Hendershott, the attorney for the sellers, himself held the stock instead of delivering it to the title company in conformity with the contract, there can be little question, under the circumstances, that he could not have failed to conform to the provisions of the contract. H. H. Miller Industries Co. v. Roman, 37 Ohio App. 71, 174 N.E. 141 (1930); De Moss v. Conart Motor Sales, 34 Ohio Op. 535, 72 N.E.2d 158 (C.P. 1947). The reality as well as the form of the transaction was hence a completed sale of the stock to petitioner and a distribution by Piston to petitioner after petitioner became Piston's shareholder.
The overwhelming authority is that an agreement involving patent rights is subject to specific performance. See, e.g., Aircraft Elec. Appliance Corp. v. Replogle (App. 1933), 15 Ohio Law Abs. 6, 8; H.H. Miller Indus. Co. v. Roman (1930), 37 Ohio App. 71, 74. See, also, Hughbanks v. Browning (1917), 9 Ohio App. 114, 115-16.