Dunkley Co. v. California Packing Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Suit in equity by the Dunkley Company against the California Packing Corporation. Decree for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. PMantiff as assignee and owner sues on two patents covering the inventions of Samuel J. Dunkley, viz., No. 1,104,175, for a “machine for peeling peaches and other fruit,” and No. 1,237,628, for a “process of peeling peaches or other fruits or vegetables.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Suit in equity by the Dunkley Company against the California Packing Corporation. Decree for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. PMantiff as assignee and owner sues on two patents covering the inventions of Samuel J. Dunkley, viz., No. 1,104,175, for a “machine for peeling peaches and other fruit,” and No. 1,237,628, for a “process of peeling peaches or other fruits or vegetables.” These patents rest upon a single application filed by Dunkley November 29, 1904—subsequently divided so as to separately…
1Opinion of the CourtHough, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The above statement shows that the license of 19Í4 was a settlement of expensive conflict between Dunkley and the Fruit Canners’ Association; the consideration is manifest, entirely apart from the formal recital.
Two phrases of this document are especially important: (1) The association is licensed “for the benefit of itself and its successors,” and (2) the privilege is granted for the use of the Dunkley invention “in, connection with (the associatidn’s) business relative to the canning or treatment of fruit.” •
[1] One preliminary contention may be put…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Southern Pacific Co. v. LoweSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
- Keokuk & Western Railroad v. MissouriSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Lane & Bodley Co. v. LockeSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Keystone Type Foundry v. Fastpress Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1921
- Edison Electric Light Co. v. Peninsular Light, Power & Heat Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Michigan · 1899
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- In Re Stanley Hotel, Inc.United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Colorado · 1981
- Neon Signal Devices, Inc. v. Alpha-Claude Neon Corp.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1931
- Battery Homeowners Ass'n v. Lincoln Financial Resources, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1992
- Braun, Bryant & Austin v. McGuireCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
- North Texas Nat. Bank v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1929
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.