Penley Bros. Co. v. Hall
Citation | 84 F.2d 371 |
Decision Date | 03 June 1936 |
Docket Number | No. 3141.,3141. |
Parties | PENLEY BROS. CO. v. HALL. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Frank H. Haskell, of Portland, Me. (Eiffel B. Gale, of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for appellant.
Robert Hale, of Portland, Me. (Brooks Whitehouse and Verrill, Hale, Booth & Ives, all of Portland, Me., on the brief), for appellee.
Before BINGHAM, WILSON, and MORTON, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal by the defendant from a final decree for the plaintiff in a suit in equity. We shall refer to the parties, plaintiff and defendant, as they appeared in the District Court. The suit is on a patent license agreement to recover royalties. No specific relief was prayed for except an account and payment of the sum found due. The District Judge held that royalties were due according to the terms of the agreement, and he directed that the account of them should be carried to June 6, 1935, about seventeen months after the beginning of this suit, on which date the agreement became terminated.
The points raised by the present appeal are: (1) Whether the case is within the jurisdiction of the federal court; (2) whether the claim can be prosecuted by a suit in equity, or should be sued at law; (3) whether the plaintiff is precluded from recovering because of her own breach of the license agreement; and (4) whether the account should have been carried forward to include items not due when the bill was filed.
The facts are not in dispute. Prevost, the plaintiff's testator, obtained United States patent No. 1,382,931, dated June 28, 1921, on "clothes pins and manufacture thereof." By the agreement sued on, he granted the defendant an exclusive license under this patent. The terms of this license agreement as far as here material were that the defendant would pay stated royalties (one-half cent per gross) on all clothespins manufactured by it under the patent, and that:
The defendant believed that the patent was being infringed by one Swezey, a manufacturer in Vermont, and called the matter to Prevost's attention by letter dated June 3, 1932. In this letter the defendant said that it would "go ahead with the suit against Swezey as you (Prevost) suggested"; that "the suit should be brought in your (Prevost's) name as patentee and in our (the defendant's) name as licensee"; that Prevost indorsed the letter: "The above meets with my approval and I hereby agree to the same." Before the infringement suit was instituted, Prevost died; and the plaintiff was in due course appointed his executrix. After her appointment, she signed and made oath to the bill of complaint in the infringement suit against Swezey, which was prepared by counsel for Penley Bros. Company and was also signed by that company. The date of her jurat to the bill was August 3, 1932. It was duly filed in the federal court for the district of Vermont on or about August 20, 1932.
Under date January 3, 1933, the plaintiff wrote to the defendant the following letter:
To this letter the defendants answered that they could not conceive what material facts the plaintiff and her father were not informed about or not made acquainted with; that the dismissal of the suit against Swezey would be prejudicial to Penley Bros. Company and would result in great injury to their business; that they believed that the plaintiff should co-operate and render every assistance in her power, except financial assistance, in helping to protect and defend the patent; and that they could not agree to a dismissal of the suit. The plaintiff replied under date of January 24, 1933, that she had what she believed to be reliable information that Swezey was not in fact manufacturing or selling infringing clothespins, and saw no reason why the suit should not be dismissed. The defendants answered that they had positive information to the contrary, and that Swezey's plant was now in operation on infringing clothespins; that the plaintiff's demand for dismissal of the suit was a breach of the covenants of the license; that they should pay no further royalties after that date (February 10, 1933), and considered themselves relieved of any further obligation under the license, and she was free to do with the patent as she saw fit; that "the situation is a business situation and we cannot afford to pay royalty any longer when it is perfectly clear that the patent affords us no vestige of protection." In view of the subsequent outcome of the Vermont suit, it seems clear that the plaintiff was mistaken in her statement that the patent was not being infringed. The infringement suit was not pressed to trial at that time.
On January 19, 1934, the present suit to recover royalties was begun. The defendant then pressed the infringement suit to hearing; and on June...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Coleman v. Fletcher
...281, 283; St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Van Raalte, 259 S.W. 1073; Hutchinson v. Swope, 256 S.W. 134; Salant v. Fox, 271 F. 449; Penley Bros. v. Hall, 84 F.2d 371; Raybestos-Manhattan v. Asbestos Textile Co., 79 634; Hoffman v. Mastin, 119 S.W.2d 1027, 1030; Cook v. Harrington, 54 S.W.2d 439......
-
Graffam v. Wray
...foundation for jurisdiction in equity. Hall v. Penley Brothers Co., 9 F.Supp. 936, 940 (D.Me. 1935), vacated on other grounds, 84 F.2d 371 (1st Cir. 1936). ...
-
Wood v. William B. Bliss Co.
...others, as the licensor had agreed to do, was a breach going to the roots of the license agreement. See Penley Bros. Co. v. Hall, 1 Cir., 84 F.2d 371. The parties apparently recognized the materiality of the licensor's failure to protect the use of his patented invention by preventing its u......
-
Paris Utility Dist. v. AC Lawrence Leather Co., Civ. No. 86-0111 P
...in equity." 437 A.2d at 635 n. 12 (citing Hall v. Penley Bros. Co., 9 F.Supp. 936, 940 (D.Me.1935), vacated on other grounds, 84 F.2d 371 (1st Cir.1936)). But this Court does not read either Graffam or Hall as indicating that an accounting is available irrespective of the adequacy of a reme......