Fort Stanwix Canning Co. v. William McKinley Canning Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Motion by the defendants, the William McKinley Canning Company and another, for a new trial under section 1001 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an interlocutory judgment in favor of the plaintiff having been entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Oneida on the 1st day of November, 1898, upon the decision of the court rendered after a trial at the Oneida Special Term.
Read the full summary
Motion by the defendants, the William McKinley Canning Company and another, for a new trial under section 1001 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an interlocutory judgment in favor of the plaintiff having been entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Oneida on the 1st day of November, 1898, upon the decision of the court rendered after a trial at the Oneida Special Term. By the judgment the defendants were adjudged to be guilty of infringing the plaintiff’s trade marks or labels known as the “ F. S. Flag” or “ Sweet Kernel,” and “Pride of Rome,” by the adoption and use by them of…
1Opinion of the Court
McLennan, J.:
For several years prior to the 24th day of January, 1896, the defendant J. Lloyd Jones, Bert Olney and James P. Olney owned substantially all the capital stock of and jointly controlled four corporations, organized for the purpose of packing vegetables of various kinds and other products in tin cans of different sizes and selling the same to the public, viz., the “ Fort Stanwix Canning Co.” (this plaintiff), which had its plant and place of business at Rome, N. Y.; the “ William McKinley Canning Co.” (the defendant company), its plant and place of business being located at Lenox,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Chas. S. Higgins Co. v. Higgins Soap Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1895
- Newman v. . AlvordNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Colman v. . CrumpNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
- Hier v. . AbrahamsNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Crawford v. LausNew York Supreme Court · 1899
3Cited by3 opinions
- E. F. Prichard Co. v. Consumers Brewing Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1943
- Medd v. BOYD WAGNER, INCORPORATEDDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1955
- Le Pak v. HedbergSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1927