Sterling Varnish Co. v. Macon
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeals, Nos. 81 and 82, Oct. T., 1906, by plaintiff, from decree of O. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Feb. T., 1905, Nos. 64 and 65, on bill in equity in ease of Sterling Varnish Company v. Latimer S. Macon and Cadwallader Evans, Jr., individually and as Copartners, trading as Macon-Evans Varnish Company. Bill in equity for an injunction. Before Miller, J., specially presiding. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.
Read the full summary
Appeals, Nos. 81 and 82, Oct. T., 1906, by plaintiff, from decree of O. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Feb. T., 1905, Nos. 64 and 65, on bill in equity in ease of Sterling Varnish Company v. Latimer S. Macon and Cadwallader Evans, Jr., individually and as Copartners, trading as Macon-Evans Varnish Company. Bill in equity for an injunction. Before Miller, J., specially presiding. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case. Error assigned was the decree of the court which limited °the injunction to the spray pipe, a small part of the relief asked.
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
Defendants obtained knowledge of certain business secrets relative to machinery and processes, while in the employment of complainant under contract expressly stipulating that they were not to divulge any of such secrets or to make use of them or any part of them directly or indirectly except for complainant’s benefit. This bill was filed on the ground that after leaving complainant’s employment the defendants were using such secrets for their own advantage.
It was shown that they had opportunity and motive for *9such use; that one of them while in sole charge during the absence of…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Macbeth-Evans Glass Co. v. SchnelbachSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
- Herold v. Herold China & Pottery Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1919