Hat-Sweat Mfg. Co. v. Porter
| Decision Date | 16 April 1888 |
| Citation | 34 F. 745 |
| Parties | HAT SWEAT MANUF'G CO. v. PORTER et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
John R Bennett, Roscoe Conkling, and A. Q. Keasbey, for complainant.
Edmund Wetmore, for defendants.
The question presented for consideration is, does the bill exhibit a case for equity cognizance? The defendants insist that the complainant has an adequate remedy at law. The bill sets forth these facts: The complainant is a Pennsylvania corporation, having its general place of business in Philadelphia. The defendants are citizens of New Jersey. On the 7th of March, 1884, the complainant, being the owner of several patents, all of which relate to sweat-bands for hats or caps, the manufacture thereof, and the machinery used in making them licensed the defendants to use the patents, on certain terms and conditions, among which were the payment of royalties the rendering of monthly accounts, with remittances of cash and a stipulation that the agents of the complainant should be allowed at all reasonable times to inspect their books for the purpose of verifying their accounts, and to have free access to the premises where the patented machines were operated or stored, to verify their number and examine their condition. The defendants also covenanted not to dispute the validity of any of the patents. After accepting the license, the defendants made many thousand dozens of hat bands under the patents, paid the royalties as they fell due, and performed all of their covenants up to June 1, 1887, since which time they have refused to pay royalties, render accounts, or fulfill any part of their agreement with the complainant, although they have continued to use, and are still using, the patented machines. The complainant has issued 145 licenses, which are all in force and complied with, except those of the defendants and four other licensees, against whom similar motions are now pending. The bill further charges that the defendants have combined with certain other licensees of the complainant, and with other parties, who are infringing these patents, and have formed an association for the contribution of money to embarrass the complainant by expensive litigation, and to destroy its license system. The damages claimed for these unlawful acts are estimated at $7,500; and it is also claimed that, if the defendants are permitted to continue the violation of their agreement, the complainant will receive irreparable injury. The bill prays for a discovery and account, and for a decree for the payment of the royalties and the damage sustained, and enjoining the defendants in the mean time from using any of the inventions recited in the agreement of license. The defendants do not deny the material allegations of the bill, with the exception of the charge of combination or conspiracy, but justify their conduct on the ground that they were induced by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Indiana Mfg. Co. v. J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co.
... ... 1141; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Union Pac ... Rld. Co. (C.C.) 3 Fed. 423, 721; ... [154 F. 367] ... McKay v. Smith (C.C.) 29 F. 295; Hat Sweat Mfg ... Co. v. Porter (C.C.) 34 F. 745; Ball Glove Fastener ... Co. v. Ball & Socket Co. (C.C.) 36 F. 309; Am. Box ... Mch. Co. v. Crosman ... ...
-
Hazeltine Research Corp. v. Freed-Eisemann Radio Corp.
...C. C. A. 467; Rowland v. Biesecker, 185 F. 515, 107 C. C. A. 615; Oscar Barnett Co. v. Crowe, 219 F. 450, 135 C. C. A. 162; Hat-Sweat Co. v. Porter (C. C.) 34 F. 745; Neenan v. Otis Elevator Co. (C. C.) 180 F. 997, 194 F. 414, 114 C. C. A. 376; Dixie Cotton Picker Co. v. Bullock (C. C.) 188......
-
Washburn & Moen Mfg. Co. v. Cincinnati Barbed-Wire Fence Co.
...should execute an undertaking to secure the complainant for the amount of any decree which might be rendered in its favor. In Manufacturing Co. v. Porter, 34 F. 745, defendants had repudiated the license, and combined with other licensees and with infringers to embarrass the complainant by ......
-
Ruby v. Ebsary Gypsum Co.
...and that complainant's notice affected the rescission and termination of the contract from the time it was given. And in Hat-Sweat Mfg. Co. v. Porter (C. C.) 34 F. 745, it was ruled that, upon the licensee refusing to fulfill any part of the agreement, such as paying royalties and rendering......