Rumford Chemical Works v. Hygienic Chemical Company of New Jersey No Hygienic Chemical Company of New York v. Rumford Chemical Works No 121
| Citation | 54 L.Ed. 137,30 S.Ct. 45,215 U.S. 156 |
| Decision Date | 29 November 1909 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 9,121,s. 9 |
| Parties | RUMFORD CHEMICAL WORKS, Petitioner, v. HYGIENIC CHEMICAL COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY. NO 9. HYGIENIC CHEMICAL COMPANY OF NEW YORK, James E. Haller, and Adolph Hirsh, Petitioners, v. RUMFORD CHEMICAL WORKS. NO 121 |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Messrs. Philip Mauro and C. A. L. Massie for the Rumford Chemical works.
Messrs Edwin T. Rice, Willard Parker Butler, and Whitridge, butler, & Rice for the Hygienic Chemical Company.
These are two suits in equity, brought by the Rumford Chemical Company for the infringement of a patent for baking powders; one, No. 9, brought in the third circuit, New Jersey, against the Hygienic Chemical Company, a corporation of that state; the other, No. 121, brought in the second circuit, New York, against a New York corporation of the same name. The two cases were tried on substantially the same record and evidence, with the result that in New Jersey the bill was dismissed by the circuit court of appeals (83 C. C. A. 177, 154 Fed. 65), but in New York the bill was sustained (86 C. C. A. 416, 159 Fed. 436). Writs of certiorari were granted by this court.
The defendants rested on the plaintiff's evidence, and the question in both suits was whether a prima facie case had been made out. It did not appear that the defendants made or sold baking powders as such, but the New Jersey company did make acid phosphates for baking powders and other purposes, and the New York company sold the great part of its products. The plaintiff contended that this acid phosphate had the characteristics described in its patent, and was made and sold for use in baking powders, and that the manufacture and sale were an infringement of its rights. A previous decision (Rumford Chemical Works v. New York Baking Powder Co. 67 C. C. A. 367, 134 Fed. 385, establishing the patent, was relied upon as a test case by which the defendants were bound; but, except the final decree, entered after the beginning of the present suits, the record was not put in. It would seem, from a late case, that the plaintiff was correct in point of fact (Provident Chemical Works v. Hygienic Chemical Co. 170 Fed. 523), but the question here must be discussed, of course, on the evidence before the court below. The question is material as bearing upon the admissibility of the evidence of one Clotworthy, since dead, given in the suit against the New York Baking Powder Company, upon which the plaintiff relied.
Clotworthy was the president and general manager of the Clotworthy Chemical Company, and was a manufacturer of baking powder. He testified to the purchase from the Hygienic Company of New York of a barrel of granular acid phosphate, shown to be similar to that described in the plaintiff's patent. A bill from the New Jersey company and a receipt from the New York company also were produced and put in. The courts in both circuits rightly regarded this as the most important, if not the only, evidence to make out the infringement alleged. Therefore it was necessary that the plaintiff should prove that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morris v. Gressette
...F.2d 419, 422, cert. denied 340 U.S. 865, 71 S.Ct. 87, 95 L.Ed. 632 (1950). 10 To the same effect: Rumford Chem. Wks. v. Hygienic Chem. Co. (1909) 215 U.S. 156, 160, 30 S.Ct. 45, 54 L.Ed. 137; Council Brothers, Inc. v. Ray Burner Company (5th Cir. 1973) 473 F.2d 400. 11 See, also, Bryson v.......
-
SS Kresge Co. v. Winget Kickernick Co., 10818-10820.
...875; Souffront v. La Compagnie des Sucreries, 217 U.S. 475, 486, 30 S.Ct. 608, 54 L.Ed. 846; Rumford Chemical Works v. Hygienic Chemical Co., 215 U.S. 156, 160, 30 S.Ct. 45, 54 L.Ed. 137; Stryker v. Goodnow's Administrator, 123 U.S. 527, 538, 540, 8 S.Ct. 203, 31 L.Ed. 194; Pittsburgh Termi......
-
City of Shidler v. HC Speer & Sons Co., 703.
...Dominion Copper M. & S. Co., 225 U. S. 111, 126, 32 S. Ct. 641, 56 L. Ed. 1009, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 875; Rumford Chem. Works v. Hygienic Chem. Co., 215 U. S. 156, 30 S. Ct. 45, 54 L. Ed. 137; City of Mankato v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co. (C. C. A. 8) 142 F. 329; Lane v. Welds (C. C. A. 6) 99 F.......
-
Gonzalez v. Banco Cent. Corp.
...might term, in the vernacular, the power--whether exercised or not--to call the shots. 7 See Rumford Chem. Works v. Hygienic Chem. Co., 215 U.S. 156, 160, 30 S.Ct. 45, 46, 54 L.Ed. 137 (1909) (holding that the concept of substantial control refers to "the right to intermeddle in any way in ......