Whippany Mfg. Co. v. United Indurated Fibre Co. of New Jersey

• Decision Date: 28 March 1898
• Docket Number: 11.
• Citation: 87 F. 215
• Parties: WHIPPANY MFG. CO. et al. v. UNITED INDURATED FIBRE CO. OF NEW JERSEY et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

87 F. 215

WHIPPANY MFG. CO. et al. v. UNITED INDURATED FIBRE CO. OF NEW JERSEY et al.

No. 11.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

March 28, 1898

M. H Phelps and M. B. Philipp, for appellants.

Charles Neave and Frederick P. Fish, for appellees.

Before ACHESON, Circuit Judge, and BUTLER and BRADFORD, District judges.

BUTLER District Judge.

This is an appeal from a decree for preliminary injunction. The facts are well stated in the opinion filed below, and need not be repeated here. The learned judge discussed the exhibits and affidavits intelligently and carefully, apparently as if the case was up for final hearing. Were we required to determine the rights of the parties finally, on this evidence we might possibly adopt his conclusions. We are not however. That determination must await a future hearing, when the exhibits may be considered in the light of what witnesses say on examination and cross-examination in presence of the parties. The only question now presented is whether the complainants' rights as claimed, are so entirely clear as to justify the preliminary writ awarded. The rule governing such cases is well settled. While the remedy is a valuable one, it is also a dangerous one; and when applied improvidently may work irreparable mischief. It should never be applied when the complainant's case is doubtful-- except indeed where the object is merely to preserve the status quo, as when alleged rights are menaced. As the court said in Brush Electric Co. v. Electric Storage Battery Co., 64 F. 775:

'While it is well settled that a preliminary injunction will issue almost as matter of course in any given case where the defendants are shown to be guilty of infringement, after an adjudication establishing the validity of the letters patent involved in the litigation, yet it is equally well settled that to warrant and justify the exercise of this extraordinary power, the proof of the alleged infringement must be clear and decisive. Equity peremptorily insists that such action, so drastic in its effects, shall be taken only in those cases wherein a clear undoubted equitable right to the interference of the court is shown. * * * It must be apparent that affidavits ex parte as they are, can only be productive of doubt. * * * The existence of such doubt must control the action of the court.'

In Machine Co. v. Adams, Fed. Case. No. 752, Judge McKennan said:

'A motion for a provisional injunction is always an appeal to the discretion of the court, but, in the class of cases to which the present one belongs, such discretion ought to be exercised

...