Continuous Glass Press Co. v. Schmertz Wire Glass Co.
| Decision Date | 22 April 1907 |
| Docket Number | 8. |
| Citation | 153 F. 577 |
| Parties | CONTINUOUS GLASS PRESS CO. v. SCHMERTZ WIRE GLASS CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
A. B Stoughton, for appellant.
Thomas W. Bakewell and Wm. L. Pierce, for appellees.
Before GRAY, Circuit Judge, and HOLLAND and LANNING District Judges.
On November 2, 1905, the Schmertz Wire Glass Company and the Mississippi Wire Glass Company filed their bill of complaint in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania, praying that the Continuous Glass Press Company be restrained from an alleged infringement of patent No. 791,217, for a process and apparatus for manufacturing wire glass. On March 28, 1906, an application for a preliminary injunction was denied. On April 6, 1906, an order was made providing that if the complainants, within four days from the date of the order, should file a schedule of the net prices and terms of sale of the styles of glass they alleged the defendant was manufacturing in infringement of the complainants' patent, agreeing to maintain those prices and terms during the pendency of the suit, the defendant should within one week thereafter have leave to signify its willingness to abide by such prices while the suit was pending, and that, on the defendant's failure so to do, the complainants might renew their application for a preliminary injunction. The complainants filed their schedule on the day of the date of the order, and on April 11th the defendant filed a statement signifying its willingness to abide by those prices and terms. On the same day, April 11th the defendant issued to the trade a circular letter, the opening paragraph of which was as follows:
'By an order of court and agreements in pursuance thereof, copies of which are hereto attached, the Mississippi Wire Glass Company is after this date, April 11, 1906, debarred from selling its polished wire glass, rough wire glass, and ribbed wire glass at less than the following prices.'
The complainants thereafter renewed their application for a preliminary injunction, on the ground that the circular letter was misleading in its character, and because, as it was proved, the defendant had represented at least to one party in Chicago that the order of the court was in effect a restraining order against the Mississippi Wire Glass Company forbidding their selling wire glass at any other prices than those stated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Cold Metal Process Co.
...2 Cir., 76 F. 2d 124, 125, 126; Sinclair Refining Co. v. Midland Oil Co., 4 Cir., 55 F.2d 42, 45; Continuous Glass Press Co. v. Schmertz Wire Glass Co., 3 Cir., 153 F. 577, 578. The rule as quoted above from Pratt v. Stout also appears to be the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in Ohio O......
-
Schmertz Wire Glass Co. v. Western Glass Co.
... ... Plate Glass Co. (C.C.) 144 F. 115, decided September 30, ... 1904. Other cases along the same line are the following: ... Continuous Glass Press Co. v. Schmertz Wire-Glass ... Co., 153 F. 577, 82 C.C.A. 587; Schmertz Wire-Glass ... Co. v. Pittsburg Plate-Glass Co. (C.C.) 168 ... ...
-
American Ice Co. v. Royal Petroleum Corp.
...F.2d 226; Murray Hill Restaurant Inc., v. Thirteen Twenty One Locust, Inc., 3 Cir., 1938, 98 F.2d 578; Continuous Glass Press Co. v. Schmertz Wire Glass Co., 3 Cir., 1907, 153 F. 577. We find no such compelling reason for intervention Finally, there is a question concerning the scope of the......