Gasoline Products Co. v. American Refining Co.
Decision Date | 21 April 1926 |
Docket Number | No. 571.,571. |
Citation | 12 F.2d 98 |
Parties | GASOLINE PRODUCTS CO., Inc., v. AMERICAN REFINING CO., Inc. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Delaware |
Ward, Gray & Ward, of Wilmington, Del., and Ramsay Hoguet and Daniel L. Morris, both of New York City, for plaintiff.
William S. Hilles, of Wilmington, Del., and Frank S. Busser, of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.
The bill of complaint of Gasoline Products Company, Inc., alleges that the defendant, American Refining Company, Inc., was a licensee under United States letters patent Nos. 1,203,312, 1,437,229, and 1,423,500; that the license was terminated on December 9, 1924, and that the defendant has continued, since that date, to practice and use the inventions of those patents. The plaintiff now asks that the defendant be required to answer the following interrogatories:
The motion for an order directing an answer to these interrogatories contains this paragraph:
"The reason this motion is brought is that the facts asked for are material to the support of plaintiff's cause, and the apparatus is under the control and within the possession of defendant."
The defendant interposes no objection to the first interrogatory. It does object, however, to Nos. 2 and 3 upon the ground that they call for a disclosure by the defendant of facts to which the plaintiff has not shown itself entitled. Plaintiff takes the position that equity rule No. 58 establishes its right to the facts sought. Consequently the issue is one involving merely an interpretation of that rule, or rather the portion thereof which provides: "The plaintiff * * * may file interrogatories * * * for the discovery by the opposite party * * * of facts * * * material to the support * * * of the cause. * * *" The meaning of these words seems plain. While they empower the employment by the plaintiff of interrogatories to obtain discovery from a defendant, the right so conferred is not unlimited. Interrogatories must be restricted to the scope of the case made by the bill. Du Pont v. Du Pont (D. C.) 234 F. 459; Gormully & Jeffrey Manuf'g Co. v. Bretz (C. C.) 64 F. 612; Fuller v. Knapp (C. C.) 24 F. 100.
Moreover, unless the bill shows that the matters of which discovery is sought are material to the issues raised by the bill (Richardson v. Pennsylvania Coal Co. D. C. 203 F. 743; Oro Water, Light & Power Co. v. City of Oroville C. C. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lever Bros. Co. v. Proctor & Gamble Mfg. Co.
...v. Attapulgus Clay Co., D.C., 26 F.Supp. 968, 972; Shimadzu v. Electric Storage Battery Co., D.C., 6 F.Supp. 393; Gasoline Products Co. v. Refining Co., D.C., 12 F.2d 98, 99; International C. P. Co. v. Caledonia Cellulose Co., D.C., 55 F.2d 380; Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Byrnes, D. C., 1 ......
-
Tiller v. Cincinnati Discount Co.
... ... General Film Company v. Sampliner (C.C.A.) 232 F ... 95; Gasoline Products Company v. American Refining ... Company (D.C.) 12 F.2d 98; 18 ... ...