Sproull v. Pratt & Whitney Co.

Decision Date07 May 1901
Docket Number127.
Citation108 F. 963
PartiesSPROULL v. PRATT & WHITNEY CO.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

De Lancy Kennedy was in his lifetime a citizen and resident of the state of New York, and died on or about January 16, 1893 leaving a last will and testament which was duly probated. The complainant, a citizen and resident of the state of New York, was appointed administratrix with the will annexed of his estate on September 24, 1894. The defendant is a corporation under the laws of the state of Connecticut. Prior to May 26, 1888, Kennedy was the owner of four letters patent of the United States,-- the first, No. 148,566, dated March 17, 1874, for a machine for applying power in implements used either for cutting, or shearing, or punching, which could be and was, used for shearing without a punch, and which expired June 17, 1891; the second, No. 161,968, dated April 13, 1875 for a spiral punch, which expired on April 13, 1892; the third, No. 267,751, dated November 2, 1882, for an improvement on the spiral punch, which expired on February 17, 1895, in consequence of the expiration of a prior Canadian patent for the same invention; and the fourth, dated January 3, 1888, for a coupler to attach punches of different diameters to a punching machine, which will expire in 1905. The first three patents were issued to Kennedy as inventor. The fourth was issued to Alfred H. Raynal, who assigned it to Kennedy as inventor. On May 26, 1888, Kennedy, as party of the first part, entered into a written contract with the defendant. The essential parts of the agreement, after reciting the ownership of the patents, are as follows 'The party of the first part hereby gives and grants unto the party of the second part, its successors and assigns, the sole and exclusive right, except as to parties above named to whom license to manufacture has already been granted to manufacture in the United States of American and sell in the United States and other countries, the machines, punches, etc., under the aforesaid letters patent during the unexpired term thereof; also such other improvements therein as he may make of acquire during the continuance of this agreement. Said party of the first part further agrees to devote * * * his whole time for twelve months * * * to the introduction and sale * * * of the above-mentioned articles manufactured by the said party of the second part. * * * The party of the second part promises and agrees to manufacture at its cost and expense, in such reasonable quantity as shall meet the demand of the market of the United States and other countries, the said machines, punches, etc., and make earnest endeavor to sell them; to employ said party of the first part for twelve months * * * to introduce and sell * * * the said machines and punches manufactured by it; * * * to render to said party of the first part a full and correct report, on or about the first day of the months of July, October, January, and April in each year, of sales, wherever made, of said machines and punches, etc., during the preceding three months, and pay to said party of the first part during said four months twenty (20) per cent. of the proceeds of such sales as royalty, excepting upon sales of punches Nos. 10, 11, and 12, upon...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Ohio Citizens Trust Co. v. Air-Way Electric App. Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • September 1, 1944
    ... ... v. Peninsular Light, etc., Co. C.C., 95 F. 669, affirmed 6 Cir., 101 F. 831; Sproull v. Pratt & Whitney Co., C.C. 1900, 101 F. 265; and Id., 2 Cir., 1901 108 F. 963, or the license is ... ...
  • Cohn v. Compax Corp.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • June 14, 1982
    ...Foundation, Inc., 2nd Cir., 93 F.2d 475, 477; Pressed Steel Car Co. v. Union Pac. R. R. Co., 2nd Cir., 270 F. 518, 525; Sproull v. Pratt & Whitney Co., 108 F. 963, 965; Tate v. Lewis, 127 F.Supp. 105; H-P-M Dev. Corp. v. Watson-Stillman Co., 71 F.Supp. 906; McLeod v. Crawford, 176 Neb. 513,......
  • Ar-Tik Systems, Inc. v. Dairy Queen, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • March 28, 1962
    ...be inferred." The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit cited as authority two earlier cases in that circuit: Sproull v. Pratt & Whitney Co., 108 F. 963 (2 Cir. 1901) and Pressed Steel Car Co. v. Union Pac. R. Co., 270 F. 518 (2 Cir. 1920). It should be noted, however, that in all three c......
  • Lathrop v. Rice & Adams Corporation
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • December 24, 1936
    ...Co. v. Scott (D.C.) 21 F.(2d) 346; Andrews v. Landers (C.C.) 72 F. 666; Sproull v. Pratt & Whitney Co. (C.C.) 97 F. 807, affirmed (C.C.A.) 108 F. 963; Baker Oil Tools v. Burch (C.C.A.) 71 F. (2d) 31; Piaget Novelty Co. v. Headley (C.C.A.) 108 F. 870; Collis Co. v. Consolidated Machine Tool ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT