American Lead Pencil Co. v. Schneegass
| Decision Date | 20 April 1910 |
| Docket Number | 1,313. |
| Parties | AMERICAN LEAD PENCIL CO. v. SCHNEEGASS. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
V. A Batchelor, for plaintiff.
Herbert Haas and Rosser & Brandon, for defendant.
This is an application for an injunction pendente lite in the above-stated case. The hearing has been on the bill, answer affidavits, and other evidence submitted by the respective parties.
The facts are that Emil Schneegass, the defendant, had been for a number of years in the employ of the American Lead Pencil Company, and had become familiar, while so engaged, with certain trade secrets, secret devices, secret processes of manufacture, and secret formulae, the exclusive property of said company. It further appears that on March 28, 1908, he signed an agreement as follows:
'In consideration of receiving employment from the American Lead Pencil Company, I hereby agree that, should I desire to leave their employ at any future time, I will give them six (6) months' notice in writing of such intention.'
And on the 2d day of October, 1908, he signed a contract as follows:
'In consideration of receiving employment from the American Lead Pencil Company, I hereby agree that, should my employment by that company terminate at any future time, I will not for a period of three years thereafter enter the employ, either directly or indirectly, of any one interested in the manufacture of pencils, penholders, erasers, or similar articles, or use the knowledge I have gained for the benefit of such party.'
No particular consideration was paid him for signing these agreements, he simply continuing in the employ of the company under the same conditions and at the same pay that he was receiving before. On the 21st of October, 1909, he left the employ of the American Lead Pencil Company, and came to Atlanta and entered the employ of the National Lead Pencil Company, a rival manufacturer of lead pencils, etc.
The complainant in its bill alleges that it is informed and believes that the circumstances surrounding the acts of defendant in leaving its employ and entering the employ of its business rival, and his subsequent acts, are calculated to obtain and secure to such business rival, for its benefit, the trade secrets, secret devices, secret processes of manufacture, and secret formulae belonging exclusively to the plaintiff, to the substantial destruction of complainant's property in the same, and to complainant's irreparable injury, by disclosing the same, by means difficult to discover, to its rival in business.
The defendant denies that he is using, or that he holds himself ready to use, if permitted to do so, for the benefit of the National Lead Pencil Company, his knowledge, acquired while in the employ of complainant, of complainant's trade secrets, secret devices, secret processes of manufacture, and secret formulae, to the substantial destruction of complainant's property in same, and to complainant's irreparable injury, and alleges that he is not using, nor seeking to use, and has not disclosed, nor is it his purpose to disclose, complainant's trade secrets, secret devices, secret processes of manufacture, and secret formulae of which he has knowledge, but that all such knowledge has been kept secret by him, and it is his purpose to so keep it. He also denies that such trade secrets, secret devices, secret processes of manufacture, and secret formulae can be either used or disclosed to others in such a way as to make it difficult to discover such use and disclosure, but that, on the contrary, any such use could be readily detected and prevented.
Affidavits were submitted pro and con in support of the contentions of the parties. All the principal officers of the National Lead Pencil Company deny expressly that they are using or desire to use any of the trade secrets, secret devices, secret processes of manufacture, or secret formulae of the American Lead Pencil Company, or that they have obtained from Schneegass, or desire to obtain from him, any of the trade secrets of the American Lead Pencil Company; that their machines and methods are such that it would be impossible for them to use any of the methods of the American Lead Pencil Company to any advantage.
The gentlemen making these affidavits are wholly unimpeached, and, so far as the record discloses, are gentlemen of character and standing. So, also, of course, so far as the record discloses, are the officers of the American Lead Pencil Company; but a square issue of fact is made as to whether or not Schneegass is doing anything or can do anything in the way of divulging trade secrets to the injury of the American Lead Pencil Company.
A number of interesting questions are involved in the case among them the following: Whether the agreement made by Schneegass with the American Lead Pencil Company on the 2d of October, 1908, is invalid for want of consideration to support it, or whether the retention by the company of Schneegass in its employ is a sufficient consideration; whether the agreement, made October 2, 1908, not to enter the service of another company for three years, is valid and binding, because, although limited as to time, it is unlimited as to space, covering employment anywhere in the world, so far as its terms go; whether the law of New Jersey is against the validity of such an agreement as those in question here; whether the law and public policy of Georgia is against the enforcement of such contracts in Georgia; whether the United States Circuit Court, in Georgia, sitting in equity, would recognize the law of Georgia and enforce the same, where it is contrary to the general law of the country and general equity principles, and what is the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ryan v. Weiser Valley Land & Water Co.
...Co., 77 N.Y.S. 357, 74 A.D. 626; Ladd v. Flynn, 90 Mich. 181, 51 N.W. 203; World's Col. Ex. Co. v. Brennan, 51 Ill.App. 128; Am. L. P. Co. v. Schneegass, 178 F. 735.) right to an injunction may be lost by delay during which the defendant has expended large sums of money and the public have ......
-
EIGHTH REG. WAR LAB. BD. v. Humble Oil & Refining Co.
...272 U.S. 1, 14-15, 47 S.Ct. 1, 71 L.Ed. 131; Waite v. Macy, 246 U.S. 606, 38 S. Ct. 395, 62 L.Ed. 892. 5 American Lead Pencil Co. v. Schneegass, C.C.Ga., 178 F. 735; Cole Silver Mining Co. v. Virginia & Gold Hill Water Co., C.C.Nev., Fed.Cas.No. 2990; Myers v. L. & A. R. Co., D.C., 7 F.Supp......
-
Miami Beach Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Callander
...should not be granted except in rare instances in which the facts and law are clearly in favor of the moving party. American Lead Pencil Co. v. Schneegass, C.C., 178 F. 735; Zugsmith v. Davis, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 108 F.Supp. 913; Gamlen Chemical Co. v. Gamlen, D.C.W.D.Pa., 79 F.Supp. 622. Here th......
-
Bledsoe v. Grand Lodge of United Bros. of Friendship
...by the author: McFadden v. Wiess (Tex. Civ. App.) 168 S. W. 486; Ort v. Bowden (Tex. Civ. App.) 148 S. W. 1145; American Lead Pencil Co. v. Schneegass (C. C.) 178 F. 735. See, also, 14 R. C. L. pp. 314, Therefore, the action of the trial court in dissolving the temporary writ theretofore is......