Home Ins Co. v. Nobles

• Citation: 63 F. 642
• Decision Date: 27 September 1894
• Docket Number: 4.
• Parties: HOME INS. CO. v. NOBLES et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

63 F. 642

HOME INS. CO. v. NOBLES et al.

No. 4.

United States Circuit Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

September 27, 1894

G Heide Norris and Francis T. Chambers, for plaintiff.

Harrity & Beck, Hector T. Fenton, and F. Pierce Buckley, for defendants.

DALLAS Circuit Judge.

When application for a preliminary injunction was first made, I declined to entertain it because the bill was, in my opinion defective for want of a necessary jurisdictional averment. That defect has since been cured by an amendment, filed with notice and without objection, and thereupon the motion for preliminary injunction has been renewed. I have carefully considered all that the respective counsel have urged upon my attention, but deem it proper to abstain from any premature and unnecessary expression of opinion, and it must be understood that, in disposing of the present matter, nothing is indicated with reference to the conclusion which may be reached upon final hearing. It is sufficient now to say that I am not satisfied that a clear case for granting the relief sought at this stage has been made out. Upon the conflicting affidavits which have been submitted, and under the law as I understand it, the complainant's right to a decree in this proceeding, restraining the defendants 'from in any way interfering' with complainant's business 'either by threats or false representations, whether verbal or written, or by any other means whatsoever,' is at best very doubtful; and this is enough to require a denial of a preliminary injunction in pursuance of that portion of the prayer of the bill which I have quoted. I would, however presently order an injunction to restrain any further, issuing of the circular annexed to the bill, but for the fact that its use was, voluntarily, wholly discontinued before suit was brought. The statement which it contains, that the policy holders of the complainant company are liable to involve themselves in lawsuits instituted to protect the alleged copyrights there referred to, is wholly unwarranted, and was manifestly injurious to the plaintiff. It greatly exceeds the latitude which is legally permissible in the methods which may be pursued in the strife of business competition. Steamship Co. v. McGregor, (1892) App.Cas. 25. But this wrong, as appears from the affidavits and sworn answer, is not now being committed, and is not threatened. There is no reason to suppose that it will be repeated, and...