American Soda-Fountain Co. v. Green
| Decision Date | 04 June 1895 |
| Citation | 69 F. 333 |
| Parties | AMERICAN SODA-FOUNTAIN CO. v. GREEN et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
This was a bill by the American Soda-Fountain Company against Robert M. Green, Frank D. Green, and Robert M. Green, Jr. trading as Robert M. Green & Sons, for alleged infringement of certain letters patent relating to soda-water apparatus granted to one Witting. The answer denied the infringement set up some of the usual statutory defenses, and, in addition thereto, set up certain other matters, which complainant was challenged by exceptions. The paragraphs excepted to were as follows:
'(9) They allege that the American Soda-Fountain Company, the complainant herein, if it be an incorporated body, is formed by an illegal combination, in the form of a trust, of a great number of manufacturers of soda-water apparatus, who have incorporated said company, combination or trust, and combined and conspired together for the purpose of monopolizing or controlling the manufacture and sale of a staple and necessary article of manufacture, such as soda-water apparatus, within and through the United States, and for the purpose of fixing the prices at which such soda-water apparatus should be sold, and the purpose of limiting and restraining the production of soda-water apparatus, and for the purpose of restraining competition, and for the purpose of harassing and destroying the business of the manufacturers of and dealers in soda-water apparatus not forming part of said company, combination, or trust, wherefore, those defendants allege that the complainant herein is a company combination, or trust unlawful in its relation or organization and unlawful in its objects, purposes, and methods; and specifically charge the fact to be that said company, combination, or trust, is unlawful, in that it is formed and operated in restraint of trade, and that its objects and purposes are unlawful as against public policy.
'(10) And these defendants allege that the combination or trust formed under the name of the American Soda-Fountain Company, the complainant herein, has, in furtherance of its object of harassing and destroying the business and trade of its rivals, acquired a great number of letters patent of the United States, many of which are about to expire, and many of which cover unpatentable subject-matter, and has and does circulate and cause to be circulated among dealers in soda-water apparatus through the United States statements (not founded upon any adjudication of any court, but purely gratuitous, and, as these defendants allege, baseless) to the effect that soda-water apparatus manufactured and sold by those defendants is an infringement of patents owned by it, and threatening suit against purchasers and users of defendants' soda-water apparatus.'
'(12) And those defendants further allege that the purpose of the complainant in bringing this suit against these defendants, under said patent, is to harass, suppress, and destroy the business of those defendants, for the reason that these defendants, having refused to become a part of the company or trust, carried on under the name of the American Soda-Fountain Company, are rivals of the said company.'
The foregoing paragraphs were excepted to as impertinent, 'because the same are wholly immaterial, irrelevant, and cannot be properly put in issue in the cause.'
Joshua Pusey, for complainant.
The complainant alleges that it is a corporation, and is, of course, obliged to prove the fact at the very outset. The point of the matters excepted to is that the complainant company is a combination of a great number of manufacturers of soda-water apparatus, formed for the purpose of monopolizing the manufacture and sale of a staple and necessary article of manufacture, to wit, soda-water apparatus; wherefore the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. Platt
... ... Electric Light Co. v. Sawyer-Man Electric Co., 53 F ... 592, 593, 3 C.C.A. 605; American Soda Fountain Co. v ... Green (C.C.) 69 F. 333, 335; Columbia Wire Co. v ... Freeman (C.C.) 71 ... ...
-
Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus
... ... of New York under the name of the 'American ... Publishers' Association,' which included among its ... members the complainant herein and a ... property right of a corporation on the ground it has violated ... that act. Soda Fountain Co. v. Green (C.C.) 69 F ... 333; Columbia Wire Co. v. Freeman Wire Co. (C.C.) 71 ... F. 302; ... ...
-
Corrugated Paper Patents Co. v. Paper Working Mach. Co. of New York
... ... I do ... not believe that Judge Lacombe, in Streat v. American ... Rubber Co. (C.C.) 115 F. 634, meant to hold that, ... although the point of jurisdiction is ... Strait v. National Harrow Co ... (C.C.) 51 F. 819; American Soda-Fountain Co. v ... Green (C.C.) 69 F. 333; Columbia Wire Co. v. Freeman ... Wire Co. (C.C.) 71 F. 302; ... ...
-
Radio Corporation v. Duovac Radio Tube Corporation
...should be stricken out. This contention of the plaintiff is supported by a long line of cases, among which are American Soda-Fountain Co. v. Green (C. C.) 69 F. 333; Brown Saddle Co. v. Troxel (C. C.) 98 F. 620; Otis Elevator Co. v. Geiger (C. C.) 107 F. 131; Independent Baking Powder Co. v......
-
Historical Development of the Misuse Doctrine
...Co., 53 F. 592, 598 (2d Cir. 1892); Strait v. Nat’l Harrow Co., 51 F. 819, 820 (C.C.N.D.N.Y. 1892); American Soda Fountain Co. v. Green, 69 F. 333 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1895); Bonsack Co. v. Smith, 70 F. 383, 385-87 (C.C.W.D.N.C. 1895); Columbia Wire Co. v. Freeman Wire Co., 71 F. 302, 306-07 (C.C.......