275 F. 535 (7th Cir. 1921), 2822, In re L.P. Larson, Jr., Co.
|Docket Nº:||2822, 2831.|
|Citation:||275 F. 535|
|Party Name:||In re L. P. LARSON, JR., CO. v. WILLIAM WRIGLEY, JR., CO. L. P. LARSON, JR., CO.|
|Case Date:||March 31, 1921|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit|
Rehearing Denied July 20, 1921.
Charles H. Aldrich and Frank F. Reed, both of Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.
Isaac Mayer and Wallace R. Lane, both of Chicago, Ill., for respondent.
Before BAKER, EVANS, and PAGE, Circuit Judges.
BAKER, Circuit Judge.
In Larson Co. v. Wrigley Co., 253 F. 914, 166 C.C.A. 14, on appeal from a final decree dismissing Larson Company's cross-bill, we reversed the decree 'with the direction to enter an injunction and order an accounting. ' That decision is referred to for the status of the controversy anteceding the present inquiry.
True, we did not specifically direct what sort of an injunction to enter. Looking to the pleadings, the proofs, and the decision of this court, the District Court entered a final injunction, perpetual in time and universal in place. No appeal was taken to question the correctness of the District Court's interpretation of our mandate in that respect.
True, we did not specifically direct what sort of an accounting to order. Looking to the pleadings, the proofs, the decision of this court, and Larson Company's prayer for profits and its waiver of its prayer for damages, the District Court ordered the master--
'to take an account of all gains and profits of Wrigley Company to it accruing or arising from the manufacture and sale of its Doublemint gum in the dress hereinbefore enjoined, from its first sale on July 28, 1914, to the date of the entry of this decree and such further time, not exceeding ninety days, as may be necessary to comply with this decree, and until compliance therewith.'
No petition or motion has ever been presented to this court to question the correctness of the District Court's interpretation of our mandate in that respect.
While Larson Company before the master was endeavoring to make Wrigley Company account for 'all gains and profits accruing from the manufacture and sale of its Doublemint gum,' Wrigley Company, relying on the territorial limitation doctrine of the 'Tea Rose' case (Hanover Star Milling Co. v. Allen & Wheeler Co., 208 F. 513, 125 C.C.A. 515, L.R.A. 1916D, 136; 240 U.S. 403, 36 Sup.Ct. 357, 60 L.Ed. 713)...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP