Legal Opinion

Bailey Wringing Machine Co. v. Adams

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania

Decided September 15, 1877PublishedCited by 7 opinions

[In equity. Bill by the Bailey Wringing Machine Company against F. F. Adams and another for infringement of letters patent No. 22,539. Heard on motion for preliminary injunction.

1Opinion of the Court

McKENNAN, Circuit Judge.

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 only when “the complainant’s title, and the defendant’s infringement, are admitted, or are so clear and palpable that the court can entertain no doubt on the subject.” “The court are not bound, at this stage of the cause, to decide doubtful and difficult questions of law, or disputed questions of fact, nor exercise this high and dangerous power (if exercised rashly) in doubtful…

2Cited by7 opinions

  1. Edison Electric Light Co. v. Beacon Vacuum Pump & Electrical Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1893
  2. Earl v. Southern Pac. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California · 1896
  3. Edison Electric Light Co. v. Columbia Incandescent Lamp Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri · 1893
  4. Gamewell Fire Alarm Telegraph Co. v. Hackensack Improvement CommissionDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1912
  5. Ladd v. CameronUnited States Circuit Court · 1885

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API