Saxlehner v. Eisner

Decision Date07 June 1906
Docket Number280.
Citation147 F. 189
PartiesSAXLEHNER v. EISNER et al.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

A. F Cook, for appellants.

Antonio Knauth, for appellee.

Before WALLACE, LACOMBE, and TOWNSEND, Circuit Judges.

LACOMBE Circuit Judge.

In Saxlehner v. Eisner & Mendelson Co., 179 U.S. 19, 21 Sup.Ct. 7, 45 L.Ed. 60, it was held that defendant had fraudulently appropriated the complainant's bottle and label without justification or excuse, and the court sustained a decree of the Circuit Court, Southern District of New York for an injunction and accounting against that defendant. The Eisner & Mendelson Co., originally a Pennsylvania corporation, was succeeded by a corporation of the same name incorporated under the laws of West Virginia. Of both companies the defendant Eisner was president and Joseph Mendelson treasurer. The decree in the suit which went to the Supreme Court was against the West Virginia corporation, and, upon the accounting, the master found nearly $30,000 profits for which final decree was entered. The decision of the Supreme Court was rendered October 15 1900, and the accounting was commenced February 15, 1901. This suit was begun November 23, 1900, against defendants, on the theory that they were contributory or joint infringers with the company, having committed infringements not only as officers of the company but also individually, jointly, and severally. The complainant averred that she first learned of the individual acts of defendants in the course of the proceedings against the West Virginia corporation. The Circuit Court sustained the bill, and held defendants liable for the same amount as that already found against the corporation as profits. The case is so fully discussed in the opinion of Judge Hazel who heard it at circuit that a brief reference to the propositions advanced on this appeal will be sufficient.

It is contended:

1. That executive officers of a corporation cannot be held personally liable for infringements by the corporation. In Hutter v The De Q. Bottle Co., 128 F. 283, 62 C.C.A. 652,

this court held that they could be so held where they have infringed the patent as individuals or have personally directed infringement.

2. That these defendants merely acted as executive officers of the company without any such personal initiative as would make them participants in the infringement. In our opinion the evidence shows the contrary. They were not only executive officers but also held, each of them, a full power of attorney authorizing them to act in all matters pertaining to the company. the directors were practically nonentities. Whatever business was to be done and whatever transaction was to be had rested entirely and solely with these two individuals who acted on their own initiative and do not seem to have reported to the directors what they did in carrying on the business. No one can read the testimony of the defendants including that taken in the suit against the corporation (which was put in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Blisscraft of Hollywood v. United Plastics Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • September 28, 1961
    ...27 F.2d 531, 537, affirmed 2 Cir., 27 F.2d 538, certiorari denied 278 U.S. 644, 49 S.Ct. 80, 73 L.Ed. 558; Saxlehner v. Eisner, 2 Cir., 147 F. 189, 191, certiorari denied 1906, 203 U.S. 591, 27 S.Ct. 778, 51 L.Ed. 331. Furthermore, plaintiff is entitled to an accounting from defendants for ......
  • Pinaud, Inc. v. Huebschman
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • January 30, 1928
    ...it appears that at the time of the suit the defendant still claims the right to do that of which the plaintiff complains. Saxlehner v. Eisner (C. C. A.) 147 F. 189, affirming (C. C.) 140 F. 983. There are other cases along this line, many of them in unfair competition suits, but it seems to......
  • George W. Luft Co. v. Zande Cosmetic Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • December 30, 1942
    ...created a strong suspicion that he was anxious to conceal his own identity with the company. He is a proper defendant. See Saxlehner v. Eisner, 2 Cir., 147 F. 189; certiorari denied 203 U.S. 591, 27 S.Ct. 778, 51 L. Ed. 331; Williams Soap Co. v. J. B. Williams Soap Co., 7 Cir., 193 F. 384; ......
  • Stromberg Motor Devices Co. v. Holley Bros. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • July 16, 1919
    ... ... v. Leland, 94 F. 502, 37 ... C.C.A. 372; Harrington v. Atlantic & Pacific Telegraph ... Co. (C.C.) 143 F. 329; Saxlehner v. Eisner, 147 ... F. 189, 77 C.C.A. 417; Brennan & Co. v. Dowagiac Mfg ... Co., 162 F. 472, 89 C.C.A. 392; Steber Machine Co ... v. Randon ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT