Adriance, Platt & Co. v. McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co.
| Citation | 55 F. 287 |
| Parties | ADRIANCE, PLATT & CO. v. McCORMICK HARVESTING MACH. CO. |
| Decision Date | 13 October 1892 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
Geo. B Selden, (Chambers & Boughton, of counsel,) for complainant.
John E Brandeger, (R. L. Parkinson, of counsel,) for defendant.
The motion for a preliminary injunction must be denied, because irrespective of any other considerations, the jurisdictional objection raised by the defendant is fatal to the suit. The bill alleges that certain letters patent of the United States for inventions in harvester and grain binding machines were granted to one Severance, the inventor; that Severance thereafter conveyed a two-thirds interest therein to Adsit and Baldwin; that thereafter Severance, Adsit, and Baldwin being then the owners of all the patents, granted to the complainant, upon the condition of the payment of a royalty of five dollars on each machine, the exclusive right to make, use, and vend the patented machines in certain specified territory of the United States, and also, so far as they could control the same, the exclusive right to build the patented machines for sale in Europe, Australia, and South America; that thereafter the said Severance, Adsit, and Baldwin, being still the owners of the patents, transferred all their right, title, and interest therein to McCormick, subject to the rights of complainant under the license; that thereafter McCormick, being then the owner of the patents, granted and conveyed to the defendant the exclusive right to make, use, and vend the patented inventions throughout the United States, subject to the rights of the complainant; that since McCormick became the owner of the patents the complainant has always paid him the royalties secured by the license agreement with the original owners, among them the royalties on all machines made by complainant and sold in foreign countries; and that the defendant, in violation of the complainant's exclusive rights, has made and sold machines containing the patented inventions in England, France, and Germany, and threatens to continue so to do. The prayer for relief is for an injunction and an accounting.
Upon the hearing of the motion there seemed to be reason to doubt whether the suit was not founded on the breach of contract between complainant and the original owners of the patents set forth, to which McCormick and his licensee, the defendant, had subsequently...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stonite Products Co v. Melvin Lloyd Co
...Jeffrey Mfg. Co. v. Pope Mfg. Co., C.C., 34 F. 818; Preston v. Fire-Extinguisher Mfg. Co., C.C., 36 F. 721; Adriance, Platt & Co. v. McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co., C.C., 55 F. 287; National Typewriter Co. v. Pope Mfg. Co., C.C., 56 F. 849; Bicycle Stepladder Co. v. Gordon, C.C., 57 F. 529;......
-
Lewis Blind Stitch Co. v. Arbetter Felling Mach. Co.
... ... circuit, Halstead v. Manning (C.C.) 34 F. 565, and ... Adriance v. McCormick Harvesting M. Co. (C.C.) 55 F ... 287; Sixth circuit, ... ...
-
Donnelly v. United States Cordage Co.
... ... 721; Cramer v ... Manufacturing Co., 59 F. 74; Adriance v. Harvesting ... Mach. Co., 55 F. 287. This act, like the ... ...
-
Adriance, Platt & Co. v. McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co.
...that upon the facts set forth 'the cause of action is the ordinary one for infringement,' to be prosecuted and defended in the usual way. 55 F. 287. There is here, no question of jurisdiction; and it is not necessary to consider whether or not the defendants, by taking title to the patents ......