Gillette Safety Razor Co. v. Wolf
| Decision Date | 15 August 1910 |
| Citation | 180 F. 776 |
| Parties | GILLETTE SAFETY RAZOR CO. v. WOLF. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Clifford E. Dunn, for complainant.
Isidor Buxbaum, for defendant.
Complainant is the owner of a patent for safety razors, which it manufactures and sells under certain restrictions as to the price at which they shall be resold at retail; notice of such restrictions being affixed to the cases in which the goods are sold by it. It also sells razor sets to the United Cigar Stores Company put up in a distinctive manner with notice of restriction against any sale, such goods being merely redeemed as premiums by the original holders of certificates issued by the Cigar Stores Company. On June 2, 1910 complainant obtained an injunction forbidding defendant from selling or offering for sale razors or razor blades at less than the fixed price, and from selling or offering for sale or in any manner dealing in so-called 'Premium razors' which had been manufactured for the Cigar Stores Company. This injunction was on the same day served upon defendant.
It being alleged that he subsequently, on June 2d, violated this injunction and defendant denying such allegations, it was sent to a special master to take proof and report. The master has reported that at one of the defendant's branch stores a sale at cut prices was made by one of his employes on the day named. Nothing is shown upon which the correctness of this report could be questioned. It is further alleged that defendant while the master had the matter before him again violated the injunction (on July 7) and a motion to punish for this second violation has been argued on affidavits. It seems to be quite clearly established.
The defendant's contention is that, upon being served with the injunction, he at once issued orders to his employes to be careful not to sell any razors or blades at cut prices and not to offer any premium goods; that the sales complained of were contrary to his orders, and resulted from the carelessness of some individual employe. But, as was said in Christensen Engineering Co. v. Westinghouse Air Brake Co., 135 F. 774, 68 C.C.A. 476, even if defendant 'be acquitted of any deliberate violation of the order of the court, having given instructions not to sell such (articles), nevertheless it is thought that an intelligent defendant should take such steps as will enforce obedience to its instructions on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United Factory Outlet, Inc. v. Jay's Stores, Inc.
...under familiar principles of law with the discrimination perpetrated in violation of the injunction. See Gillette Safety Razor Co. v. Wolf, 180 F. 776, 777 (S.D.N.Y.); Babee-Tenda Corp. v. Scharco Mfg. Co. Inc., 156 F.Supp. 582, 587 (S.D.N.Y.). 14 It was thus possible for the trial judge to......
-
Babee-Tenda Corporation v. Scharco Manufacturing Co.
...this court for so doing. Violations of an order of the court need not be wilful to constitute civil contempt. See Gillette Safety Razor Co. v. Wolf, C.C.S.D.N.Y., 180 F. 776; Telling v. Bellows-Claude Neon Co., 6 Cir., 77 F. 2d 584; Proudfit Loose Leaf Co. v. Kalamazoo Loose Leaf Binder Co.......
-
Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Sun Vacuum Stores, Inc.
...for employee actions is no less severe in civil contempt proceedings. Other authorities are to the same effect. Gillette Safety Razor Co. v. Wolf, C.C.S.D.N.Y.1910, 180 F. 776; United States v. Van Riper, 3 Cir., 1946, 154 F.2d 492; Admiral Corporation v. Price Vacuum Stores, D.C.E. D.Pa.19......