Missouri Phonograph Co. v. Tomlinson
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Action at law by the Missouri Phonograph Company against John C. Tomlinson and Millard P. Tompkins. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Before the occurrences directly involved in this suit, and about 1890, nu- ' merous corporations were formed in divers parts of the United States for the purpose of exploiting the phonograph, then still a novelty.
Read the full summary
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Action at law by the Missouri Phonograph Company against John C. Tomlinson and Millard P. Tompkins. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Before the occurrences directly involved in this suit, and about 1890, nu- ' merous corporations were formed in divers parts of the United States for the purpose of exploiting the phonograph, then still a novelty. These companies were severally territorial licensees under certain patents, and the exclusive territory of each corporation was usually one…
1Opinion of the CourtHough, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). This action is not against Andem; it must stand or fall as against his counsel; and it rests on alleged deceit, concerning which the general x principles have been sufficiently stated in Farrar v. Churchill, 135 U. S. 615, 10 Sup. Ct. 771, 34 L. Ed. 246. We have pointed out in Varley, etc., Co. v. Ostheimer, 159 Fed. 657, 86 C. C. A. at 525, that in such suits “fraud is alleged and must be proved; fraud involves deception; if the plaintiffs were not deceived, they cannot recover”; and, it may be added, there can be no recovery if the plaintiffs were not…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Farrar v. ChurchillSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Varley Duplex Magnet Co. v. OstheimerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1908