People v. Diedrich

• Decision Date: 12 May 1892
• Parties: PEOPLE v. DIEDRICH.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

141 Ill. 665

30 N.E. 1038

PEOPLE

v.DIEDRICH.¹

Supreme Court of Illinois.

May 12, 1892.

Appeal from appellate court, first district.

Attachment proceedings against Nicholas Diedrich, Sr., for contempt of court in violating a decree. Defendant was adjudged guilty, and fined. This action was reversed by the appellate court. The people appeal. Affirmed.

Thos. C. Kerrick and I. K. Boyeson, for appellant.

John M. Hamilton, for appellee.

WILKIN, J.

To the May term of the circuit court of Cook county, 1882, the Ruttan Manufacturing Company, Horace W. Soper, Clinton P. Soper, and Charles B. Rogers filed a bill in chancery against Nicholas Diedrich, Sr., and Nicholas Diedrich, Jr., and David S. Hayes, the latter as Diedrich & Hayes, for an injunction. Subsequently they amended the bill, setting up substantially the same facts as in the original, and praying the same relief. The bill, in substance, as amended, alleges that Nicholas Diedrich, Sr., in violation of an agreement previously entered into by him, was in the name of said Diedrich & Hayes manufacturing and selling the ‘Ruttan Furnace,’ and thereby infringing upon the rights of the complainants, as owners of the patent right to the same. The defendants answered jointly, denying the right of the complainants to said patent, and also that they, the defendants, or either of them, had violated any such right, or that the said Nicholas Diedrich, Sr., was manufacturing or selling said furnace in the name of said Diedrich & Hayes. Subsequently the complainants, and Nicholas Diedrich, Jr., and David S. Hayes, as Diedrich & Hayes, entered into an agreement, in which it is stated that it is made in compromise of said suit in chancery, and is ‘intended as an adjustment of the claims of the respective parties to said litigation, as set forth in the pleadings in said cause, and of all matters in controversy between them.’ In the agreement it is stipulated that said Nicholas Diedrich, Jr., and David S. Hayes, as Diedrich & Hayes, should have the exclusive right of said furnace in certain territory in the states of Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan therein described, and that the complainants should not in any way interfere with that right; the said Diedrich & Hayes agreeing to neither sell, nor attempt to sell, in any other territory. It was also stipulated in said agreement that, in carrying out said compromise, a decree should be entered in said cause in favor of the complainants, and against the defendants, whereby the court should find certain facts in favor of the complainants as alleged in their bill, and decree as follows, to wit: ‘It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the said Nicholas Diedrich, Sr., be, and he is hereby, perpetually enjoined and restrained from manufacturing, or being interested in the manufacture, of the said tubular masonry furnaces, or furnaces of similar design or pattern, or of parts that will fit the said furnaces; and that the said defendants, and each and every of them, be, and they are hereby, perpetually enjoined and restrained from using in any way, on said tubular masonry furnaces, or furnaces of similar design or pattern, or in connection therewith, either alone or inconnection with said system of heating and ventilation, the said trademark of ‘Ruttan,’ either alone or inconnection with other word or words, and from publishing the said circular Exhibit C, or any similar circular, or advertisement or publication, or any cut, picture, or drawing, in which they, or either or any of them, claim a right or profess to manufacture or sell the said Ruttan furnace, either alone or in connection with said system of heating and ventilation, and from claiming and pretending or asserting in any place or places that they, or either or any of them, have or has a right to or does manufacture, sell, furnish, or set up the said Ruttan tubular masonry furnace, or any furnace of similar design or pattern, under the name ‘Ruttan.” Following the stipulation as to said decree was the further agreement: ‘And it is agreed that, when the decree is so entered, it shall in no manner bar, preclude, or interfere with the said parties of the first part [said Diedrich & Hayes being named in the agreement as parties of the first part] having the full enjoyment and use of the trade-mark, manufacture, and sale of said furnaces, and parts thereof, in said pleadings and decree described, and herein referred to, within the territory by this agreement reserved to said party of the first part.’

Whether a decree was ever entered as per said stipulation does not appear, but the record does show that an order was made reciting that ‘said Diedrich & Hayes had settled and adjusted said matters of complaint between them and said complainants,’ and that said bill, on the motion of the complainants, should stand dismissed as to them; and then, after reciting the finding of certain facts, ‘ordered, adjudged, and decreed’ that this defendant, Nicholas Diedrich, Sr., be enjoined and restrained from manufacturing, or being interested in the manufacture of, certain tubular masonry furnaces, or parts thereof, and from using in any way said furnace or furnaces of similar design or pattern, or from using the trade-mark ‘Ruttan,’ either alone or in connection with other words, and from using a certain circular advertising said furnaces, etc. After the said agreement between complainants and Diedrich & Hayes, and the entry of said decree, the firm of Diedrich & Hayes continued to manufacture and sell said furnaces at Bloomington, Ill., until the spring of 1888. The foundry in which the business of manufacturing the furnaces was at all times carried on in Bloomington was owned by the defendant, and when the firm of Diedrich & Hayes quit business,in the spring of 1888, he resumed possession and control of it. He afterwards deeded it to his daughter Louisa Diedrich. In the month of July, 1889, the Union Foundry Company was organized, and said Louisa conveyed said foundry to that company. On the 14th day of November, 1889, an affidavit was filed on befalf of the complainants, in said circuit court of Cook county, charging the defendant Nicholas Diedrich, Sr., with violating said injunction by manufacturing, advertising, selling, and offering for sale said Ruttan furnace, and asking that a rule be made on him to show cause why he should not be punished for such violation. He appeared and filed his answer under oath denying that he had been guilty of a breach of said injunction, and thereupon moved the court to discharge the rule against him. The case was then referred to the master to take and report the...