Pressed Steel Car Co. v. Union Pac. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 08 May 1917 |
| Citation | 241 F. 964 |
| Parties | PRESSED STEEL CAR CO. v. UNION PAC. R. CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Motion to strike out the answer of the defendant to the plaintiff's bill of discovery. The bill alleged that the plaintiff had commenced an action at law in this court, which was still pending and at issue, and annexed a copy of the complaint. The complaint at law alleged that the parties had entered into a contract under which the defendant promised for a stated period to pay the plaintiff $10 upon the completion of any freight cars made for the defendant or any of its constituent railways, which should embody 'any and all of the designs or devices covered by United States letters patent then owned or controlled by the plaintiff, or which the plaintiff thereafter might own or control,' including a list of 11 specified patents set forth in the contract. The complaint at law further alleged that the defendant in the period covered by the contract had either directly or through its constituent railways built '14,464 freight cars which contained designs or devices covered by one or more of the United States letters patent owned or controlled by the plaintiff during said period,' including 11 patents specifically set forth. The complaint at law also contained two other causes of action, but for the purposes of this motion it is not necessary to set them forth.
The bill for discovery then proceeded to allege that it had no means of ascertaining the constituent railways of the defendant without a discovery from the defendant, nor what freight cars it had built embodying the patents, nor the contracts made for their construction, nor the drawings and specifications upon which they were built. Therefore it annexed to the bill ten interrogatories, of which the first four inquired in general what were the defendant's constituent railways, and in especial whether certain named railways were constituent. The other interrogatories inquired generally for the production of the drawings, contracts specifications, bids, and delivery dates of all freight cars built for the defendant, or any of its constituent companies during the period in question.
The answer to the bill of discovery alleged that the date of expiry of 4 of the 11 patents mentioned specifically in the contract was before the contract itself expired, and that before the date of such expiry it had not, nor had any of its constituent companies, built any freight cars which 'contained any design or device covered by said patent,' except as already accounted for by the defendant. It alleged that none of the freight cars built during the period 'contained any design or device covered' by any of the other patents specified in the complaint, except the Hansen patent, or any at all similar to them. It alleged that all 'common standard' cars mentioned in the contract between the parties, both those built before and those built after the date of the contract had been paid for at the stipulated royalties, but that this type was abandoned in the year 1910, and had not since been made; that four-fifths of the cars built during the period in question contain a device known as the Bettendorf underframe and one-fifth contain other wellknown underframes; that the Bettendorf underframe was the subject of a suit under the Hansen patent specified in the complaint at law, in which suit the said Hansen patent was declared void; that, as the said patent was not mentioned in the contract, its validity was not conceded by the defendant, and no royalty is therefore due under it.
W. C Margeson, of New York City, for the motion.
George A. Ellis and James R. Sheffield, both of New York City, opposed.
LEARNED HAND, District Judge (after stating the facts as above).
Before the new rules, and under the old course of equity, the necessity of a plea to a bill arose from the rule that, if the defendant once consented to answer, he must answer fully and that therefore in his answer he must respond to all the charges of evidence contained in the bill. This has now been changed by the abolition of pleas (rule 29, 198 F. xxvi, 115 C.C.A. xxvi), and by the provisions that discovery shall be by interrogatories, to which specific objections may be taken (rule 58, 198 F. xxxiv, 115 C.C.A. xxxiv), and that the pleadings shall contain no evidence, but the 'ultimate facts.' As a result, the proper practice in a bill of discovery is now as follows: The plaintiff will plead those facts which entitle him to a discovery from the defendant, and will annex such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dowling v. Isthmian SS Corporation
...in equity, but a bill of discovery was available on proper conditions, which precluded more summary procedure. Pressed Steel Car Co. v. Union Pac. R. Co., D.C., 241 F. 964. A report of a colonial case furnished an interesting background: "Ffrances Harison Qui Tam Contra Pinke Good Intent an......
-
EH Rohde Leather Co. v. Duncan & Sons
...of New Providence Tp. (C. C. A.) 263 F. 481; Pressed Steel Car Co. v. Union Pac. Ry. Co. (D. C.) 240 F. 135. See also, same (D. C.) 241 F. 964; Quirk v. Quirk (D. C.) 259 F. 597; Cobb Temperature Regulator Co. v. Baird (D. C.) 292 F. 909; Perkins Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Owen (D. C.) 293 F......
-
Baush Mach. Tool Co. v. Aluminum Co. of America
...do so. The interest of justice dictates otherwise. The procedure adopted below is warranted by the authorities. Pressed Steel Car Co. v. Union Pac. R. Co. (D. C.) 241 F. 964. A discovery elucidating the facts in the matter of costs from the appellant's own records should be of aid to the co......
-
Jenkins Petroleum Process Co. v. Sinclair Refining Co.
...before the trial for the purpose of preparing for it." See, too, Pressed Steel Car Co. v. Union Pac. R. Co. (D. C.) 240 F. 135; Id. (D. C.) 241 F. 964, and Colgate v. Compagnie Francaise du Telegraphe de Paris a N. Y. (C. C.) 23 F. 82, an able opinion by Judge Wallace. It devolves upon the ......