Edison Phonograph Co. v. Kaufmann

• Citation: 105 F. 960
• Decision Date: 03 January 1901
• Docket Number: 8.
• Parties: EDISON PHONOGRAPH CO. et al. v. KAUFMANN et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

105 F. 960

EDISON PHONOGRAPH CO. et al. v. KAUFMANN et al.

No. 8.

United States Circuit Court, W.D. Pennsylvania.

January 3, 1901

Howard W. Hayes, for complainants.

W. B Rodgers, for respondents.

ACHESON Circuit Judge.

I cannot doubt that the complainants have the right to sell their patented phonographs with the restrictions and upon the conditions contained in their 'jobber's agreement,' and that dealers buying the patented instruments from the jobbers with notice of those restrictions and conditions are bound thereby. Dickerson v. Matheson, 6 C.C.A. 466, 57 F. 524; Same v Tinling, 28 C.C.A. 139, 84 F. 192, 195. The material facts here appearing are these: Upon application for a supply of the patented phonographs by the defendants to the complainants the defendants were informed of the plan the complainants had devised for the protection of themselves and their customers as embodied in their 'jobber's agreement,' and a copy of that agreement was furnished to the defendants to be signed by them. A correspondence by letters between the parties then ensued. The defendants asked to have the agreement modified by striking out the eleventh clause, but this was positively refused by the complainants. The defendants were advised fully of the reasons which had led to the adoption of the plan for doing business as contained in the 'jobber's agreement,' and the defendants were distinctly informed that the complainant's would not deviate therefrom in any instance. Shortly thereafter (within two months) the defendants took steps to get a supply of the patented phonographs manufactured by the complainants through one Wood, a merchant of the city of New York, from whom the defendants were accustomed to purchase other goods. Wood was not then a dealer in phonographs, and the defendants did not send him an order for the instruments. The defendants' manager, Mr. Baer, saw Wood personally, and procured his services in the matter of obtaining the phonographs from the complainants. The following extract from Mr. Baer's affidavit in behalf of the defendants, made and filed herein, states the transaction thus:

'Affiant inquired of said Wood as to whether the purchase of the phonographs could be made from him, to which inquiry said Wood replied that he did not then know, but felt sure that he could get them, and sell them to defendants. It was distinctly understood between affiant and said Wood that defendants, in case they received the...