Jackson v. Allen
Citation | 120 Mass. 64 |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
Decision Date | 07 March 1876 |
Parties | James L. Jackson & another v. Aaron H. Allen |
Argued September 3, 1875; March 17, 1874; November 20, 1875. [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material]
Suffolk. Contract upon the following indenture, dated March 23, 1869, and signed by the plaintiffs and the defendant:
The declaration alleged as breaches of this contract: first, that the defendant had granted a license to one Bernhard Koechling to make and sell the patented chair; and, second, that the defendant had refused and neglected to prosecute Koechling as an infringer. Answer, a general denial. Trial in this court, before Wells, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions in substance as follows:
On March 23, 1869, the plaintiffs and the defendant executed the instrument declared on, and it was recorded in the patent office on October 8, 1869. The defendant's reissued letters patent of January 15, 1861, were for an "improvement in seats for public buildings," described as follows: "When there are a series of seats in a row, a continuous shaft or fulcrum may be used by forming on the end of each alternate section a screw arranged to pass through the frame or standard into a screw box or female thread connected with each adjoining section." "What is here claimed as new and useful is a swinging or lever seat, set and moving upon a cross shaft or hinges, and sustained when in use by a stop or stops so disposed as that the rear portion of the seat comes in contact with said stop or stops when the seat is turned down, substantially as herein set forth; and whether combined or not with weights or springs whereby the said seat may assume and retain a vertical or raised position automatically as herein specified."
The original patent was assigned by the defendant to Enos G. Allen and in 1860 the plaintiffs obtained from him an exclusive license for the United States to make and sell the patented chair during the term of the original patent, which expired in December, 1868.
On February 26, 1869, Bernhard Koechling took out letters patent of the United States for "a new and useful improvement in folding chairs," thus described: The specific claim was for the arrangement of stop-pins, fitting into corresponding mortises, by which the seat is supported both in front and rear of the pintle on which the seat is hung, and of certain iron straps, playing in slots, in the side pieces of the chair, in combination with the back.
The plaintiffs had commenced legal proceedings in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York in the name of Enos G. Allen against Koechling, for making chairs under his patent, on the ground of infringement of Allen's patent. This suit was pending at the expiration of Allen's original patent. In October, 1868 a similar suit by Enos G. Allen against Koechling was pending in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts, and was on May 7, 1869, dismissed by agreement of counsel by the following entry: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Eno v. Prime Mfg. Co.
...use it after his license had ended, yet the invalidity of the patent would be a material factor in the determination of damages. Jackson v. Allen, 120 Mass. 64. The first question arises as to the jurisdiction of a State court to determine the validity of a patent in a suit for damages for ......
-
Independent Wireless Telegraph Co v. Radio Corporation of America, 87
...17 Fed. Cas. 1325, 1329, No. 10,109; Mr. Justice Gray, while Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in Jackson v. Allen, 120 Mass. 64, 77; Judge Lowell, in Wilson v. Chickering (C. C.) 14 F. 917, 918; Judge Shipman, in Brush-Swan Co. v. Thomson Co. (C. C.) 48 F. 224, ......
-
Eno v. Prime Mfg. Co.
...use it after his license had ended, yet the invalidity of the patent would be a material factor in the determination of damages. Jackson v. Allen, 120 Mass. 64 The first question arises as to the jurisdiction of a State court to determine the validity of a patent in a suit for damages for b......
-
Brown v. Loewenbach
...552, 559;Starry v. Korab, 65 Iowa, 267, 21 N. W. 600;Allen v. Hodge, 51 Vt. 392, 395;Langdon v. Doud, 10 Allen (Mass.) 433, 436;Jackson v. Allen, 120 Mass. 64, 79;Weidemann v. Springfield Breweries Co., 78 Conn. 660, 664, 63 A. 162;Shapley v. Abbott, 42 N. Y. 448, 449, 457, 1 Am. Rep. 548;T......