Adriance, Platt & Co. v. National Harrow Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
In Equity. Suit for injunction. On final hearing. This is an action to restrain the publication of circulars and letters stating that spring-tooth harrows manufactured by the complainant infringe certain pa tents owned by the defendant.
Read the full summary
In Equity. Suit for injunction. On final hearing. This is an action to restrain the publication of circulars and letters stating that spring-tooth harrows manufactured by the complainant infringe certain pa tents owned by the defendant. The ease was before the court on demurrer to the hill and the demurrer was overruled for the reason that under the sweeping allegations of the bill a ease might he proved showing that the circulars were false, fraudulent and malicious and were published with intent to injure and destroy the complainant’s business. 98 Fed. 118. The circulars and all the…
1Opinion of the CourtCoxe, District Judge
(after stating the facts). Upon the decision' of the demurrer the court plainly intimated that there could be no- recovery should it appear that the defendant was the owner of patents relating to spring-tooth harrows and that the circulars complained of asserted simply the validity of these patents, that they were infringed by the complainant’s harrows and that infringers would be prosecuted. The circulars in evidence show nothing more. There is not a false statement of fact to be found in the circular quoted above or in any of the other circulars or letters in evidence. Necessarily the claim…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Lane & Bodley Co. v. LockeSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Richardson v. OsborneU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York · 1897
- Fosdick v. Lowell Machine ShopU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1893
3Cited by1 opinion
- Mumford v. Ecuador Development Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1901