Curran v. St. Charles Car Co.
| Citation | 32 F. 835 |
| Parties | CURRAN and others v. ST. CHARLES CAR CO. |
| Decision Date | 15 November 1887 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
Krum & Jonas, for complainants.
Wells W. Leggett, for respondents.
In the case of John J. Curran and others against the St. Charles Car Company, I have looked into the application made by the Boston Blower Company to be made a party defendant to that suit. The application of the Boston Blower Company is based upon the ground that the apparatus for drying lumber, which is now being used by the St. Charles Car Company, and which is claimed to be an infringement of the complainants' patent, was purchased of it by the St. Charles Car Company and that it is under obligations to the St. Charles Car Company to protect that company against all suits for infringement. For that reason it desires leave to be made a party defendant, as it is engaged in the manufacture of such apparatus, in order that there may be a full hearing and determination of the question as to whether its apparatus is an infringement of the claims of any of the patents owned by the complainants.
Under the circumstances it seems to me that it is a reasonable request, and that the Boston Blower Company should be allowed to come in and defend this action, if the court, by permitting it to come in and defend, will acquire such jurisdiction of the parties that the final decree entered in the case will be binding upon the complainants, and also upon the Boston Blower Company. I was disposed to think yesterday morning when the application was made, that it was doubtful in the event the Boston Blower Company was made a party whether the final decree in the case would be binding as between it and the complainants, in view of the fact that both are non-residents; but, upon further reflection, as jurisdiction in this class of cases depends upon the subject-matter, and not upon the citizenship of the parties, I am of the opinion that the Boston Blower Company, by coming in and asking to be made a defendant, would thereby submit itself to the jurisdiction of the court in such manner that any decree this court might make on the question of infringement would be binding upon the complainants and upon all of the defendants. Therefore I shall permit the Boston Blower Company to be made a party defendant for the purpose of defending their vendee against the suit of these complainants.
In connection with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Taylor
...219; Leaver v. Box & Lumber Co. (D. C.) 6 F.(2d) 666; Atlas Underwear Co. v. Cooper Underwear Co. (D. C.) 210 F. 347; Curran v. St. Charles Car Co. (C. C.) 32 F. 835; United States v. Four Bottles of Sour Mash (D. C.) 90 F. 720; United States v. Powers-Weightman-Rosengarten Company (D. C.) ......
-
Chandler Price Co v. Brandtjen Kluge
...the maker of the accused article is upon its application and in the discretion of the court permitted to intervene. Curran v. St. Charles Car Co. (C.C.) 32 F. 835, 836; Foote v. Parsons Non-Skid Co. (C.C.A.) 196 F. 951, 953; Continuous Extracting P. Corp. v. Eastern Cotton Oil Co. (D.C.) 26......
-
Allington v. Shevlin-Hixon Co.
...and might be extending the rights of such third person beyond the point intended by equity rules 30 and 37. See Curran v. St. Charles Car Co. (C. C.) 32 F. 835. But, as Burns' opposition to plaintiffs' motion to dismiss must fail in the case at bar upon other grounds, it is here neither nec......
-
Borne Scrymser Co. v. GAFFNEY MFG. CO.
...and might be extending the rights of such third person beyond the point intended by equity rules 30 and 37. See Curran v. St. Charles Car Co. (C. C.) 32 F. 835." Allington et al. v. Shevlin-Hixon Co., 2 F.(2d) 747, 749 (D. C. See, also, Angier et al. v. Anaconda Wire & Cable Co. (D. C.) 48 ......