Brown Saddle Co. v. Troxel
| Decision Date | 23 December 1899 |
| Docket Number | 5,861.,5,860 |
| Citation | 98 F. 620 |
| Parties | BROWN SADDLE CO. v. TROXEL (two cases). |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
Thurston & Bates, for complainant.
Kline Carr, Tolles & Goff and Osgood & Davis, for defendant.
These cases come before the court on exceptions to the answers of the defendant. The bills are filed to enjoin the infringement of two patents. as to one of the patents the averments of the bill show that the complainant obtained title by assignment of the legal title from the defendant. In the other case the bill makes such averments as to show that the defendant was part owner, in equity, of the title, at one time, and thence it passed to the complainant. The bill also avers that the defendant was a director of the corporation of Colorado from whom the title to the patents was assigned to the complainant, and was an active participant in that assignment. The exceptions are directed to parts of the answer which, in effect, set out that the defendant, though a director in the complainant corporation, has now no voice in its management, by reason of the combination of the majority interests to prevent his having a proper voice therein. The exceptions are further directed to an averment that the complainant is a constituent of a combination or trust alleged to be in violation of the so-called federal anti-trust law, and void under common-law rules.
The exceptions must be sustained, and the matter objected to eliminated from the answer. The averments of the answer with reference to the defendant's connection with the corporation do not tend in any way to show that he did not by his conduct as a stockholder and director in corporations through whom the title to the patents sued on passed, estop himself from denying the validity of the patent, or the title of the complainant thereto. I do not mean to say that his relation, as developed in the bill, necessarily estops him, but it is certain that the averments of the answer are impertinent and irrelevant upon that issue.
Secondly the averment that the complainant is part of a combination or trust is irrelevant and impertinent, for the reason that it is no ground for denying relief for continued trespasses by a third person upon the property of the complainant. The fact that a corporation is part of an illegal combination or trust cannot justify the spoliation of the property which belongs...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
WISCONSIN ALUMNI RF v. Vitamin Technologists
...Electric Corporation et al., D. C., 50 F.2d 206; General Electric Co. v. Minneapolis Electric Lamp Co., D.C., 10 F.2d 851; Brown Saddle Co. v. Troxel, C.C., 98 F. 620; Trico Products Corporation v. E. A. Laboratories, Inc., D.C., 49 F.2d 404; Harms v. Cohen, D.C., 279 F. 276; Independent Ba......
-
General Electric Co. v. Minneapolis Electric Lamp Co.
...will not deprive him of his right to maintain a suit for injunction on account of infringement of a patent owned by him. Brown Saddle Co. v. Troxel (C. C.) 98 F. 620; Virtue v. Creamery Package Mfg. Co., 179 F. 115, 102 C. C. A. 413. The maxim, "He who comes into equity must come with clean......
-
BB Chemical Co. v. Ellis
...court holdings that violation of the anti-trust laws by a patentee is no defense to a suit for patent infringement. See Brown Saddle Co. v. Troxel, C.C., 98 F. 620; Radio Corp. of America v. Majestic Distributors, D.C., 53 F.2d 641; Buck v. Newsreel, Inc., D.C., 25 F.Supp. Presumably there ......
-
Voices, Inc. v. Metal Tone Mfg. Co., Inc.
...or copyright to the effect that the plaintiff is a party to an unlawful combination does not constitute a defense. Brown Saddle Company v. Troxel (C.C.) 98 F. 620; Motion Picture Patents Company v. Eclair Film Company (D.C.) 208 F. 416; Independent Baking Powder Company v. Boorman (C.C.) 13......
-
Historical Development of the Misuse Doctrine
...383, 385-87 (C.C.W.D.N.C. 1895); Columbia Wire Co. v. Freeman Wire Co., 71 F. 302, 306-07 (C.C.E.D. Mo. 1895); Brown Saddle Co. v. Troxel, 98 F. 620 (C.C.N.D. Ohio 1899); Nat’l Folding-Box & Paper Co. v. Robertson, 99 F. 985 (C.C.D. Conn. 1900); Otis Elevator Co. v. Geiger, 107 F. 131, 132 ......