Hop Bitters Manuf'g Co. v. Warner
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Michigan
In Equity. On motion to amend interlocutory decree in a trademark case. In this case an interlocutory decree was entered on the fourth day of February, 1886, adjudging defendant guilty of-infringing plaintiff’s trade-mark, awarding an injunction, and referring the case to a master to assess and report the damages sustained by plaintiff.
Read the full summary
In Equity. On motion to amend interlocutory decree in a trademark case. In this case an interlocutory decree was entered on the fourth day of February, 1886, adjudging defendant guilty of-infringing plaintiff’s trade-mark, awarding an injunction, and referring the case to a master to assess and report the damages sustained by plaintiff. On the twenty-third day of August defendant moved to strike out the clause in the decree awarding damages, and referring it to a master, upon affidavits showing gross laches on the part of the plaintiff in prosecuting its claim, and also that the manager of…
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
A motion to amend an interlocutory decree by striking out the award of damages, upon affidavits tending to show that if all the facts in the ease had been put in evidence, and called to the attention of the court, a different decree would have been rendered, is a novelty in equity practice which we are not disposed to sanction. Errors in judgments or decrees are divided into errors clerical and errors judicial. The former may be amended even after term, provided the existence of such error is shown by the record, and not otherwise. Hudson v. Hudson, 20 Ala. 364; Thompson v. Miller, 2 Stew.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Dixon v. MasonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1882
- Hudson v. HudsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1852
- Thompson v. MillerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1830
- Stringer v. AndersonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1884
- Forquer v. ForquerIllinois Supreme Court · 1857
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.