Hapgood v. Rosenstock

• Decision Date: 07 February 1885
• Citation: Hapgood v. Rosenstock, 23 F. 86 (S.D. N.Y. 1885)
• Parties: HAPGOOD and others v. ROSENSTOCK and others.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

23 F. 86

HAPGOOD and others v. ROSENSTOCK and others.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. New York.

February 7, 1885

J. C Hueston, for complainants.

Dickerson & Dickerson, for defendants.

WALLACE J.

The complainants' motion for a preliminary injunction is founded on a bill which shows that in August, 1884, one Alice D. Hadlock, who was then the owner of a patent for an improvement in bustles, entered into an agreement with the complainants which is set out. By the terms of that agreement Hadlock, in consideration of certain royalties to be paid from time to time by the complainants, conveyed to them 'the sole and exclusive right and privilege to manufacture and sell' the patented bustle anywhere in the United States, with the exception that they were not to sell the bustles in Chicago, and reserving to Hadlock herself the privilege to manufacture and sell the bustles in any part of the United States. By the second clause of that agreement Hadlock covenanted 'not to form any stock company or copartnership for the purpose of manufacturing the bustle. ' By the third clause she agreed that complainants might prosecute infringers, and that any moneys which might be the outcome of any suits for infringement brought by complainants should belong to them. The bill further alleges that defendant Rosenstock asserts that October 4, 1884, he obtained an assignment of the patent from Hadlock, and is now the sole and exclusive owner thereof; that although complainants have fully performed their agreement with Hadlock the defendants assert that his rights under said agreement have been forfeited and terminated; and that the defendant Rosenstock is now manufacturing and selling the patented bustles in the city of New York. It is also alleged that Rosenstock had full knowledge of all the rights and equities of the complainants at the time he acquired the assignment of the patent. The prayer of the bill is for an injunction restraining Rosenstock from interfering with the complainants' rights and privileges under their agreement with Hadlock, and from making, selling, and using the patented bustles. The defendants claim that Rosenstock is now the owner of the patent, and admit that he purchased it from Hadlock with knowledge of the terms of the agreement between her and the complainants.

As the requisite diversity of citizenship exists between the parties, and is alleged in the bill to confer jurisdiction upon this court, the jurisdiction does not depend upon the patent laws, but upon general principles of equity. Assuming that the complainants did not acquire by their agreement with Hadlock the legal title to the patent, and therefore could not maintain an...