Chadeloid Chemical Co. v. H.B. Chalmers Co.
| Decision Date | 05 April 1917 |
| Citation | 242 F. 71 |
| Parties | CHADELOID CHEMICAL CO. v. H. B. CHALMERS CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
William Houston Kenyon and Gorham Crosby, both of New York City, for appellants.
Frederick S. Duncan, of New York City, for appellee.
Before WARD, Circuit Judge.
Judge Manton in this suit entered an interlocutory decree requiring the defendant H. B. Chalmers to specifically perform certain covenants in an agreement between him and others of the one part and the complainant of the other part, and he further ordered the defendant H. B. Chalmers Company to assign to the complainant three patents and all rights to damages and profits for infringement of the same. This has been done. He further enjoined the defendant from using the inventions covered by the said patents, and from making, selling, or using the paint remover heretofore made under the said patents and sold by the defendants under certain trade-names and he further ordered the defendants to pay over to the complainant all profits received by them, and damages sustained by the complainant by reason of such manufacture sale, or use, and directed an accounting for the ascertainment of the same.
Upon an application to stay the accounting Judge Manton directed that it should be stayed upon the defendants giving bond in the sum of $30,000 to pay anything that might be found due from them. The defendants have appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals under section 129 of the Judicial Code, from the interlocutory injunction. The section provides that:
'The proceedings in other respects in the court below shall not be stayed unless otherwise ordered by that court, or the appellate court or a judge thereof, during the pendency of such appeal.'
The defendants now renew before me the motion to stay the accounting pending appeal, and further move that, pending appeal, the complainant be enjoined from bringing any action for infringement of said letters patent assigned to it, either against them or their customers, and finally that the injunction be stayed.
I have, of couse, nothing to do with the merits of the case, and must take the decree to be right in all respects; errors, if any, will be corrected on appeal. I think it bad practice to renew before me the motion to stay the accounting heretofore disposed of by Judge Manton, and his conclusion will not be reconsidered.
The complainant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moffett v. Commerce Trust Co.
... ... 331 Mo. 20; Graves v. Dakessian, 132 S.W.2d 972; ... Chadeloid Chemical Co. v. H.B. Chalmers Co., 242 F ... 71; Kenny v. Kelleher, ... ...
-
Virginian Ry Co v. United States United States v. Virginian Ry Co
...& Nashville R. Co. v. Siler (C. C.) 186 F. 176, 203; Rail & River Coal Co. v. Yaple (D. C.) 214 F. 273, 283; Chadeloid Chemical Co. v. H. B. Chalmers Co. (C. C. A.) 242 F. 71, 72; Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten (C. C. A.) 245 F. 5 So far as the record discloses, the stay included in the fi......
-
Corona Coal Co. v. Southern Ry. Co.
... ... v. Patten, 245 F. 102, 157 ... C.C.A. 398; Chemical Co. v. Chalmers, 242 F. 71, 155 ... C.C.A. 15 ... The ... ...
-
In re Wymer
...stay the accounting heretofore disposed of by the trial judge, and his conclusion will not be reconsidered." Chadeloid Chemical Co. v. H.B. Chalmers Co., 242 F. 71 (2d Cir. 1917). As to California practice, Witkin states: "If the appellant does invoke the trial court's discretion and is den......