Macbeth-Evans Glass Co. v. Schnelbach

Citation86 A. 688,239 Pa. 76
Decision Date06 January 1913
Docket Number119
PartiesMacbeth-Evans Glass Co. v. Schnelbach, et al., Appellant
CourtPennsylvania Supreme Court

Argued November 5, 1912

Appeal, No. 119, Oct. T., 1912, by defendants, from decree of C.P. Allegheny Co., Jan. T., 1911, No. 710, on bill in equity in case of Macbeth-Evans Glass Company v. Harry A. Schnelbach and Jefferson Glass Company. Affirmed.

Bill in equity for an injunction.

SHAFER J., found the facts to be as follows:

First. The Macbeth-Evans Glass Company was incorporated in 1899, and has been principally engaged since that time in the manufacture and sale of glassware for illuminating purposes. Mr. George A. Macbeth has been president of the company since its organization, and has been engaged in the manufacture of glass since about 1872.

Second. At the time of the formation of the Macbeth-Evans Glass Company the defendant Harry Schnelbach was in the employ of the Thomas Evans Glass Company, one of the constituent companies out of which the plaintiff company was formed, and he thereupon entered into the employ of the plaintiff company and remained in its employ until about the beginning of the year 1910, being employed as a factory superintendent.

Third. Beginning in the year 1900 or soon thereafter George A Macbeth on behalf of the plaintiff company began a series of investigations and experiments for the purpose of discovering a method of making a better semi-translucent glass for illuminating purposes than those theretofore known. The defect in the glass which he endeavored to remedy was that the means taken to make it more or less opaque also prevented the diffusion of light through it, and the object was to make a glass which should appear to be opaque and yet should allow the light to be diffused through it. For this purpose Mr. Macbeth consulted the literature on glass-making and consulted with Mr. Nash of the Tiffany works and had him make experiments, but without success. He then employed a chemist, Mr. Silverman, to investigate the matter and make experiments, about September of 1902, and these experiments were continued to the summer of 1905. The experiments were conducted by trials of various ingredients in various proportions. The trials were made by making a small quantity of glass of each proposed mixture in small pots and testing in various ways to see if the desired properties were produced or approached by them, all this being carried on under the general supervision of Mr. Macbeth, at the plaintiff's works, and the purpose of the experiments being known to Mr. Schnelbach.

Fourth. In February of 1903 Mr. Macbeth directed Mr. Schnelbach, who was at that time general superintendent of a number of factories, to take up and supervise the tests which were being made from the formulas suggested by Silverman, which he did at plaintiff's factory at Charleroi, choosing out of the formulas in Silverman's book to the number of about one hundred a few formulas and having them mixed and melted, himself supervising the mixing and melting processes and taking the tests from time to time as the melting progressed. This use by him of one of the suggested formulas produced the glass of which the plaintiff was in search. It appeared from the various trials made by Mr. Schnelbach that this result could only be obtained by allowing the mixture to be melted to a certain point and that melting it to a materially greater or less extent would not produce the proper result.

Fifth. In the fall of 1903 the plaintiff company proceeded to manufacture ware out of this glass, which they called "Alba," and to put it on the market and sell it in large quantities, having continued the manufacture from that time up to the present time by the same formula, or one somewhat varied in minor parts but possessing the ingredients essential to the successful making of the glass, in substantially the same quantities.

Sixth. During the time of the experiments above mentioned and during the manufacture of the glass the plaintiff has endeavored at all times to keep secret the process of making Alba glass, and this fact was well known to the defendants, and these efforts to keep the formula secret have been entirely successful, no other glass manufacturer having been able to produce it, although many have tried to do so by chemical analysis of the Alba glass sold by the plaintiff and by experimentation. The secret of the formula, however, was necessarily made known to several trusted employees of the plaintiff company, including Mr. Schnelbach.

Seventh. In the year 1909 and before the defendant, the Jefferson Glass Company, was a corporation carrying on the making of glass at Follansbee, West Virginia. It was principally engaged in the making of table ware and lenses, and was controlled by one Sinclair. In the fall of 1909 Sinclair began negotiations with Schnelbach for the purpose of having him take stock in the Jefferson Glass Company and enter the employ of that company; and Schnelbach negotiated with a number of persons connected with the sales department of the plaintiff company, and especially with one C. H. Blumenauer, who was a salesman of the plaintiff company engaged in selling "Alba" glass. Schnelbach and Blumenauer thereupon, about May, 1910, left the employ of the plaintiff company and engaged, one as superintendent and the other as salesman, with the Jefferson Glass Company; and the Jefferson Glass Company thereupon began to make "Alba" glass under the supervision of Schnelbach, the glass being sold, however, under the name of "Luceo." It was the intention of Schnelbach and Blumenauer, when they engaged with the Jefferson Glass Company, to make use of the plaintiff's secret process of making Alba glass and to sell the same in competition with the plaintiff.

Eighth. This bill was filed December 17, 1910, and a preliminary injunction was granted as prayed for. Before the time fixed for hearing the parties entered into an agreement filed in the case, by which the defendants agreed to cause a general appearance to be entered and Mr. Schnelbach agreed not to impart to any person the process of making Alba glass until final disposition of the case, and the preliminary injunction should be dissolved.

Ninth. Up to about January 1, 1911, after the filing of the bill, the defendants were making glass by the "Alba" formula, as Schnelbach admits. About that time they began to use what they claim to be a different formula, discovered by Mr. Schnelbach in the fall of 1910, which they call the "Luceo" formula. As both these formulas are secret and their publication would be a great injury to the parties, whatever their rights against each other may be, it was very properly agreed by counsel that the formulas should not be disclosed upon the record, but the ingredients of the one designated by numbers and of the other by letters, it being agreed that so much of the record as would show the chemical names of these ingredients and the quantities of each should remain in the breast of the court, the formula of each being in that way shown to the court. Beside the sand, soda, and other ingredients which usually go to the making of glass, the Alba formula contains two ingredients in considerable quantities, Nos. 4 and 5; and the formula is made up of eight ingredients. The Luceo formula contains the principal ingredients of glass in about the same proportion as the other and contains also the ingredients 4 and 5 of the plaintiff's formula in about the same proportions. The number of ingredients in the Luceo formula is ten, but ingredient "i" of which only a small quantity is called for is practically the same thing chemically as ingredients "c" of the Luceo and 3 of the Alba formula; and ingredient "h" in the Luceo formula contains a considerable quantity of ingredient "e" of the Luceo or 5 of the Alba, and the Luceo formula calls for about as much less of ingredient "e" as ingredient "h" would supply to make up the amount of ingredient 5 in the Alba formula. In other words, the formulas are substantially the same, except that two of the substances in the Luceo are put in in two different forms, making apparently two different ingredients. Samples of each of these glasses produced by the respective parties were shown to the court, and so far as an unpracticed eye can discern they appear to be the same. Subjected to a photometric test they give the same result; and the chemical analysis of them show them to be practically identical.

The court entered the following decree:

And now, to wit, May 9th, 1912, this cause came on to be heard at this term and was argued by counsel, and upon consideration thereof, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed as follows:

First. That the defendant, Harry Schnelbach, his agents, employees and servants, and each of them, are hereby perpetually restrained and enjoined from making and selling, or either, Alba glass under any name whatsoever, or any other glass made by substantially the same process, mixture or formula, and from in any manner imparting or disclosing to any person, firm or corporation, the formula, mixture or batch by which Alba glass is made, or any knowledge or information of any kind concerning the same.

Second. That the defendant, the Jefferson Glass Company, its officers, agents, employees and servants, and each of them are hereby perpetually restrained and enjoined from making and selling, or either, Alba glass, or any other glass made by substantially the same process, mixture or formula, under any name whatsoever, and from using, or in any manner imparting or disclosing to any person, firm or corporation, the formula, mixture or batch by which Alba glass is made, or any knowledge or information concerning the same.

Third. That the defendants, Harry Schnelbach...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT