Universal Oil Products Co. v. Globe Oil & Refining Co.

• Decision Date: 29 November 1939
• Docket Number: No. 10744.,10744.
• Citation: 31 F. Supp. 665
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
• Parties: UNIVERSAL OIL PRODUCTS CO. v. GLOBE OIL & REFINING CO.

31 F. Supp. 665

UNIVERSAL OIL PRODUCTS CO. v. GLOBE OIL & REFINING CO.

No. 10744.

District Court, N. D. Illinois, E. D.

July 18, 1939.

Rehearing Denied November 29, 1939.

Pam, Hurd & Reichmann, of Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.

Ames, Thiess, Olson & Mecklenburger, of Chicago, Ill., for defendant.

HOLLY, District Judge.

Defendant (hereinafter referred to as Globe) has filed its petition herein asking for a rehearing on the issue of res adjudicata. It is averred in the petition that subsequent to the closing of proofs on that issue the Root Refining Company (hereinafter referred to as Root) settled its controversy with Universal Oil Products Company and withdrew its petition then pending in the District Court of Delaware for leave to file a bill in the nature of a bill of review and for rehearing to reopen and review the decree theretofore entered in that court in the case of Universal Oil Products v. Root Refining Company (leave having been granted by the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Third Circuit to present said bill to the District Court) that such settlement and compromise was effected by Root on its own initiative without reference or notice to petitioner and (upon information and belief) without conference with or notice to any of the others who, in this court's opinion, had participated in the conduct and control of the Root case. Universal filed its answer to the petition and evidence was heard. From the evidence it appears that in January last Root and Universal entered into a contract settling their differences, Root accepted a license from Universal and an arrangement was made as to the amount due from Root on account of its past operations. The supersedeas bond given by Root on its appeal from the decree of the District Court was released. The suit was not dismissed and is still pending, but the issues involved have been settled. Neither Globe nor any of the other members of the Patent Company were notified of the settlement until after the contract was signed.

I am of the opinion that the prayer of defendant's petition should be granted. In my former memorandum (Universal Oil Products v. Winkler-Koch Engineering Co., D.C., 27 F.Supp. 161) I held that the decree entered in the Root case holding Universal's patent valid and infringed was a final decree that might be set up as a bar in a subsequent case between the parties to the original suit and their privies, and that the defendant here had participated in and was one of the parties controlling that...