Washburn & Moen Mfg. Co. v. Freeman Wire Co.
| Decision Date | 21 February 1890 |
| Citation | 41 F. 410 |
| Parties | WASHBURN & MOEN MANUF'G CO. v. FREEMAN WIRE CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
The bill in this case avers, in substance, that complainant is the owner of certain barbed fence wire patents, and that on or about May 1, 1888, it granted a license to defendant to manufacture and sell certain styles of barbed fence wire to the amount of 6,000 tons per annum; that by the terms of the license defendant agreed to pay a royalty of 15 cents per hundred pounds on all fence wire so manufactured and sold and to pay the same monthly; that the licensee agreed to make monthly reports to the licensor of the number of pounds of fence wire sold, and also of the number of pounds consigned by the licensee during the preceding month, and that such reports should give the names and residences of the persons to whom sales had been made, and should also show in detail the prices and terms of delivery and payment; that the licensee also agreed to admit the validity of the patents under which the license was taken, that it would not make or sell during the period of the license any barbed fence wire other than that which it was licensed to make and sell, and that it would co-operate in properly maintaining the barbed-wire business and the patents under which the license was granted. By the terms of the license, the licensor reserved the right to cancel and annul the same for any failure of the licensee to comply with the provisions thereof. The bill further avers that complainant had at the time of granting the license issued similar licenses to other persons throughout the United States; that the complainant was itself a manufacturer of barbed wire; and that, in order to maintain its rights and secure the benefits to which it was entitled under its patents, it was necessary that all the covenants and agreements made by its several licenses should be faithfully kept; and that defendant had notice of such facts when it accepted the license in question. The bill also shows that since May, 1888, the defendant has willfully violated the provisions of the license by making and selling barbed fence wire such as is described in the license, and by failing and refusing to make the monthly reports called for, and by refusing to pay royalties. In view of the premises complainant prays for a decree requiring the defendant to render an account of all wire made and sold since May 1 1888; that it be required in future to strictly keep and perform the covenants contained in the license; and that in the mean time, and until the further order of the court, it may be enjoined from making and selling barbed fence wire of the kind described in the license.
Lehmann & Park and Hitchcock, Madill & Finkelnburg, for complainant.
W. B. Homer, for defendant.
THAYER J., (after stating the facts as above.)
On the case made by the bill, the complainant is not entitled to equitable relief. It cannot maintain a suit in equity, merely to have an account taken of the royalties due to it, and a decree for their payment, as it is now settled that courts of equity, even in patent cases, will not entertain bills merely to obtain an account of profits or damages realized or sustained by the infringement of letters patent. To authorize a decree for an accounting, either as to profits or damages to which a complainant is entitled under the patent laws, the court must first acquire jurisdiction of the cause, on some well-defined equitable ground. A case does not become one of equitable cognizance merely because an accounting is prayed for, or because it is proper to even necessary to take an account, as courts of law are competent to deal with suits of that character. Though it is usual, in many equitable proceedings where the bill is sustained, to order an accounting, yet in most, if not all, ca...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Washburn & Moen Mfg. Co. v. Cincinnati Barbed-Wire Fence Co.
... ... be enjoined from further manufacture and sales thereunder. A ... general demurrer is interposed by the defendant; the point ... relied upon being that the complainant has an adequate remedy ... The ... defendant relies upon Washburn & Moen Manuf'g Co. v ... Freeman Wire Co., 41 F. 410; Root v. Railway ... Co., 105 U.S. 189; Purifier Co. v. Wolf, 28 F ... 814; and Crandall v. Manufacturing Co., 24 F. 738 ... Washburn & Moen Manuf'g Co. v. Freeman Wire Co., was, in ... every particular, such a case as this, and the demurrer to ... the bill was sustained ... ...
-
Unilectric, Inc. v. HOLWIN CORPORATION
...remedy at law, it is not entitled to equitable relief. Thomas v. Council Bluffs Canning Co., 8 Cir., 92 F. 422; Washburn & Moen Mfg. Co. v. Freeman Wire Co., C.C., 41 F. 410; Babbot v. Tewksbury, C.C., 46 F. 86; Mayflower Industries v. Thor Corporation, 3 Cir., 182 F.2d 800; Rule 53(b) and ......
-
Heckscher v. Pennsylvania Steel Co.
... ... Perkins v. Hendryx (C.C.) 23 F. 418; Crandall v ... Mfg. Co. (C.C.) 24 F. 738; Lord v. Machine Co ... (C.C.) 24 ... 801; Purifier Co. v. Wolf (C.C.) ... 28 F. 814; Washburn, etc., Co. v. Freeman Co. (C.C.) ... 41 F. 410; Chase v ... ...
-
Universal Rim Co. v. General Motors Corporation
...339, 19 L. Ed. 955; Incorporated Town of Laurens v. Northern Iowa Gas & Electric Co. (D. C.) 262 F. 712; Washburn & Moen Manufacturing Co. v. Freeman Wire Co. (C. C.) 41 F. 410; 32 Corpus Juris, 194; Javierre v. Central Altagracia, 217 U. S. 502, 30 S. Ct. 598, 54 L. Ed. 859; Berliner Gramo......