Oneida Community v. Fouke Fur Co.
| Decision Date | 17 January 1923 |
| Docket Number | 507. |
| Citation | 286 F. 757 |
| Parties | ONEIDA COMMUNITY, Limited, v. FOUKE FUR CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Delaware |
Andrew C. Gray (of Ward, Gray & Neary), of Wilmington, Del., and Harry D. Nims, of New York City, for plaintiff.
Willard Saulsbury and Charles F. Curley, both of Wilmington, Del and Selden P. Spencer, Forrest C. Donnell, and Edwin E Hoffman, all of St. Louis, Mo., for defendant.
The problems presented by this suit are obviously of the first magnitude. Their proper solution is of prime importance, not only to the litigants, but also to traders and business in general. In only one case, however, so far as I have been able to discover, has a private litigant sought to extend the principles here invoked to facts and circumstances substantially identical to those alleged in the present bill of complaint. In that case, Passaic Print Works v. Ely & Walker Dry Goods Co., 105 F. 163, 44 C.C.A. 426, 62 L.R.A. 673, decided upwards of 20 years ago, the majority of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied the applicability of those principles to like facts. The remaining judge, in an able and lucid dissenting opinion held them to be applicable.
Whether, on a new investigation upon principle, it must be concluded that, in truth, the law then was as stated by Judge Sanborn, and not as held by the majority of the court, or, if the majority was then correct, whether statutes and decisions passed and handed down since the Passaic Case, and dealing with more or less analogous conditions, evince that the business conscience of the nation has so changed, perchance improved, as to make the dissenting views of Judge Sanborn the law of to-day, is res nova, and of such intricacy and delicacy (Nordenfeldt v. Maxim-Nordenfeldt Gun & Ammunition Co., (1894) App. Cas. 535, 553; Anchor Electric Co. v. Hawkes, 171 Mass. 101, 104, 50 N.E. 509, 41 L.R.A. 189, 68 Am.St.Rep. 403), that it should not be decided, at least in the affirmative, upon a motion for a preliminary injunction (High on Injunctions, Sec. 4).
Moreover the affidavits with respect to defendant's reasons or motives for his acts, material in the view of the complainant to its case, are conflicting. For this reason, also, the motion for a preliminary injunction must be denied. Lare v. Harper & Bros., 86 F. 481, 483, 30 C.C.A. 373; Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. v. Kelley Tire & Rubber Co. (D.C.) 276 F....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
John J. & Warren H. Graham v. Triangle Publications, Inc., 35102.
...552 (S.D.N.Y.1957). 14 See also Aig Schechner, Inc. v. Aig, 1950-51 Trade Cases § 62,711 (D.C.N.Y. 1950); Oneida Community Limited v. Fouke Fur. Co., 286 F. 757 (D.Del. 1923). 15 See e. g., Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 368 U.S. 464, 82 S.Ct. 486, 7 L.Ed.2d 458 (1961); Walke......
-
Henis v. Compania Agricola de Guatemala, Civ. No. 1530.
...v. Thirteen Twenty One Locust, 3 Cir., 98 F.2d 578; Hand v. Missouri-Kansas Pipe Line Co., D.C.Del., 54 F.Supp. 649; Oneida Community v. Fouke Fur Co., D.C.Del., 286 F. 757; General Talking Pictures v. Stanley Co., D.C.Del., 42 F.2d 904; Popular Mechanics v. Fawcett, D.C.Del., 1 F.Supp. 292......
-
Albee Godfrey Whale Creek Co. v. Perkins
...Smith v. Bowker Torrey Co. (D. C.) 199 F. 985; Ralston Steel Car Co. v. National Dump Car Co. (D. C.) 222 F. 590; Oneida Community, Limited, v. Fouke Fur Co. (D. C.) 286 F. 757; White v. Federal Radio Com. (D. C.) 29 F. (2d) 113; Street, Federal Equity Practice, § 963. There are good reason......
-
Acme Fast Freight v. United States
...v. Thirteen Twenty One Locust, 3 Cir., 98 F.2d 578; Hand v. Missouri-Kansas Pipe Line Co., D.C.Del., 54 F.Supp. 649; Oneida Community v. Fouke Fur Co., D.C.Del., 286 F. 757; General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Stanley Co., D.C.Del., 42 F.2d 904; Popular Mechanics v. Fawcett, D.C. Del., 1 F.Su......