Hapgood v. Rosenstock
Decision Date | 07 February 1885 |
Citation | 23 F. 86 |
Parties | HAPGOOD and others v. ROSENSTOCK and others. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
J. C Hueston, for complainants.
Dickerson & Dickerson, for defendants.
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 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Conway v. White
...enforced. The reason is that there is no accurate measure of damages, and a pecuniary payment is inadequate relief. Hapgood v. Rosenstock (C. C.) 23 F. 86; New York Paper Bag Machine Co. v. Union Paper Bag Machine Co. (C. C.) 32 F. 783; Hull v. Pitrat (C. C.) 45 F. In Littlefield v. Perry, ......
-
Hepworth v. Henshall
...Thomas v. Loose, 114 Pa. 35; Campbell v. Patterson, 95 Pa. 454; Ferguson v. Rafferty, 128 Pa. 337. On question of jurisdiction: Hapgood v. Rosenstock, 23 F. 86; Satterthwait Marshall, 4 Del. Ch. 337; Robinson, Patents, § 1288; Binney v. Annan, 107 Mass. 94; Adams v. Messinger, 147 Mass. 185......
-
Sedberry v. Gwynn
... ... patents and copyrights, or other monopolized articles ... obtainable only from single source. Adams v ... Messinger, 147 Mass. 185; Hapgood v ... Rosenstock, 23 F. 86; Binney v. Annan, 107 ... Mass. 94; Paris v. Haley, 61 Mo. 453; Secret ... Service Co. v. Gill, 125 Mo. 140; 36 ... ...
-
Adams v. Messenger
... ... which can be supplied by the vendors alone, are among those ... which will be specifically enforced." Hapgood v ... Rosenstock, 23 F. 86; Satterthwait v. Marshall, ... 4 Del.Ch. 337; Binney v. Annan, 107 Mass. 94; Fry, ... Spec.Perf. § 33; Wat.Spec.Perf ... ...