Ralston Steel Car Co. v. National Dump Car Co.
| Decision Date | 22 April 1915 |
| Docket Number | 723. |
| Citation | 222 F. 590 |
| Parties | RALSTON STEEL CAR CO. v. NATIONAL DUMP CAR CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maine |
Huggins Huggins & Hoover, of Columbus, Ohio, and Symonds, Snow, Cook & Hutchinson, of Portland, Me., for complainant.
Loesch Scofield & Loesch, of Chicago, Ill., and Williamson, Burleigh & McLean, of Augusta, Me., for defendant.
This case is before the court on defendant's motion to dismiss complainant's bill. The motion is presented under new equity rule 29. Under the former equity rules, the questions raised under the motion would have been presented by demurrer.
The bill in equity to which the motion is addressed sets out that complainant corporation is a citizen of Ohio, and defendant corporation is a citizen of Maine; that the jurisdiction of the court depends upon diverse citizenship, and also upon the fact that construction of the laws of the United States is involved, and that the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000.
Complainant alleges:
First. That on April 11, 1912, it entered into a 'transaction' with defendant, as evidenced by a certain copy of memorandum marked 'Exhibit A,' and made a part of the bill; that it was induced to make the contract by fraud in certain enumerated particulars; and that the contract was therefore voidable at its instance.
Second. That defendant has secretly entered into contracts with competitors of complainant, on terms which would operate to its injury, and in violation of the provisions of the contract. Complainant assumes that it has thus alleged a breach of the contract, and that, inasmuch as the contract may be avoided at its instance, defendant may not complain that complainant has broken the contract, as has been claimed in certain suits at law brought by defendant against complainant, based on the validity of the contract; and complainant alleges that it has been released from any liability under such contract.
Third. That the contract is void by reason of indefiniteness and uncertainty in certain essential particulars, and that therefore defendant should be enjoined from bringing a multiplicity of suits based upon the contract, and from prosecuting a suit already begun in a Chicago court.
Fourth. That the contract is illegal and void, because it is in violation of the laws of the United States forbidding combinations in restraint of trade.
Complainant prays:
(1) That the memorandum of agreement of April 11, 1912, may be set aside.
(2) That the defendant may be enjoined from prosecuting further the suit brought by it in a Chicago court, and from bringing any other suits, on account of such agreement.
(3) That defendant be enjoined from prosecuting any suits against complainant in any court of the United States on any of the patents set out in the agreement, and that complainant have further and general relief.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gibbs v. Buck
...v. New Orleans, D.C., 273 F. 560; Wright v. Barnard, D.C., 233 F. 329; Doherty v. McDowell, D.C., 276 F. 728; Ralston Steel Car Co. v. National Dump Car Co., D.C., 222 F. 590, 592. Compare Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U.S. 125, 144, 145, 22 S.Ct. 552, 558, 559, 46 L.Ed. 838; Wisconsin v. Illinoi......
-
Ansehl v. Puritan Pharmaceutical Co.
...Co., 183 F. 773, 774 (C. C. A. 2nd); Vitagraph, Inc., v. Grobaski, 46 F.(2d) 813, 814 (D. C., W. D. Mich.); Ralston Steel Car Co. v. National Dump Car Co., 222 F. 590 (D. C., D. Me.). There is nothing in the record which indicates the ground upon which the court below granted the motion to ......
-
Williamson v. Missouri-Kansas Pipe Line Co.
...constitute a valid cause of action in equity. Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U. S. 125, 22 S. Ct. 552, 46 L. Ed. 838; Ralston Steel Car Co. v. National Dump Car Co. (D. C.) 222 F. 590. Bearing upon the question of expediency, convenience, and power to effectuate a decree in case one should be rend......
-
Albee Godfrey Whale Creek Co. v. Perkins
...Snyder v. DeForest Wireless Tel. Co. (C. C.) 154 F. 142, 144; 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;......