Eureka Company v. Bailey Company
| Citation | 20 L.Ed. 209,78 U.S. 488,11 Wall. 488 |
| Parties | EUREKA COMPANY v. BAILEY COMPANY |
| Decision Date | 01 December 1870 |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts; the case being thus:
The Bailey Company was the owner of a reissued patent for an improved washing and wringing machine, the original of which had been issued to John Allender. There had been several surrenders and reissues of this patent, the last of which were on the 22d July, 1865. The Eureka Company being engaged in the manufacture of clothes-wringing machines under other patents, one S. B. Rindge, its treasurer professing to act as its agent, entered into two written indentures with the Bailey Company, through its general agent, for the privilege of using their patent.
The execution of the agreements was in the following form:
'In witness whereof the said party of the first part have caused its seal to be hereunto affixed, and this instrument to be signed by S. A. Bailey, its general agent, thereto duly authorized; and the said party of the second part has affixed its seal and caused these presents to be signed by S. P. Rindge, its treasurer, thereunto duly authorized, this day and year first hereinabove written.
'Bailey Washing and Wringing Machine Co.,
'S. A. BAILEY, [SEAL.]
'General Agent.
'Eureka Clothes Wringing Machine Co.,
'By S. B. RINDGE, [SEAL.]
'Treasurer.'
The seals above set were not corporate seals, but mere private seals.
The first of the agreements licensed the Eureka Company to use the patent of the Bailey Company during the existence of the patent, and of any renewal thereof, for which the Eureka Company was to pay a royalty of fifty cents for every machine manufactured by it in which the patent should be used. To secure the performance of this, and to prevent any misunderstanding, the Eureka Company furnished a sample of the machines, and agreed that its books should, at all times, be open to the examination of complainants, and that it would make monthly reports and payments; and it covenanted that it would not, directly or indirectly, infringe the reissued patent of the Bailey Company, or violate the conditions of their agreement.
The second agreement was made to arrange the prices at which the machines made by the parties should be sold, so as to prevent injurious competition.
The Eureka Company made a report and payment for one month after the agreement; but would make no more. Thereupon the Bailey Company filed a bill in the court below. The bill set out the covenants. It charged that they were the result of protracted negotiation, in which the original patent, the reissues, and the character of the invention were well considered, and that they were a fair adjustment of the interests of the parties. It then alleged that in the first month five hundred machines were made under the contract and paid for by defendant, but that it continued to make and sell the machines, and refused to account or to pay for them. It then prayed a discovery of the number made, and for an account and decree for the sum due, and for an injunction against the use of the patent until the sum found due should be paid.
The answer of the Eureka Company, which was somewhat vague in its allegation, denied that it had ever executed, or caused to be executed, or ever authorized any one in its name or behalf, to execute the indentures; asserted that ever since its organization the company had a corporate seal, duly adopted and established (an impression of which it affixed in the margin), and that it had never employed any other, or authorized any agent to use or employ any other; it denied the infringement, asserted that the reissued patent was obtained by fraud; that it was a device to cover matter not invented or claimed by Allender, and denied that the machines made by the defendants had anything in them covered by the patent of the complainant.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eno v. Prime Mfg. Co.
...when sued for the royalty, to deny the validity of the patent. Kinsman v. Parkhurst, 18 How. 289, 15 L.Ed. 385;Eureka Co. v. Bailey Co., 11 Wall. 488, 20 L.Ed. 209;United States v. Harvey Steel Co., 196 U.S. 310, 25 S.Ct. 240, 49 L.Ed. 492;Westinghouse Electrict & Mfg. Co. v. Formica Insula......
-
Stroup v. Matthews
... ... 108; Gibson v. Choteau, 13 ... Wall. (U. S.) 92, 30 L.Ed. 534; Eureka Co. v. Bailey ... Co., 11 Wall. (U. S.) 488, 20 L.Ed. 209; Curtner v ... by the United States in 1874 does not affect the Calumet ... company's rights. As the United States already had ... conveyed the lands, it had ... ...
-
Big Creek Gap Coal & Iron Co. v. American Loan & Trust Co.
... ... held against the old company, and to take in exchange ... therefor preferred stock in the defendant ... business interests of very large magnitude. Bailey v ... Tillinghast, 40 C.C.A. 93, 99 F. 801; Mary D ... Synnott et ... Co., 163 ... U.S. 564, 16 Sup.Ct. 1173, 41 L.Ed. 265; Eureka Co. v ... Bailey & Co., 11 Wall. 488, 20 L.Ed. 209; Railway ... ...
-
Free-Flow Muffler Co. v. Kliewer, FREE-FLOW
...Co. v. Boston Rubber-Shoe Co., C.C., 41 F. 48; Pope Mfg. Co. v. Owsley, C.C., 27 F. (100) 108. See, also, Eureka Co. v. Bailey Co., 11 Wall. 488 (78 U.S. 488), 20 L.Ed. 209. He has and enjoys that which he pays for, namely, immunity from any claim under the patent. The patentee gives up tha......