Legal Opinion

Hat Sweat Manuf'g Co. v. Porter

United States Circuit Court

Decided April 16, 1888PublishedCited by 3 opinions

In Equity. Motion for preliminary injunction.

1Opinion of the CourtWales, J.

The question presented for consideration is, docs the bill exhibit a case for equity cognizance? The defendants insist that the complainant has an adequate remedy at law. The bill sots forth those facts; The complainant is a Pennsylvania corporation, having its general place of business in Philadelphia. The defendants áre citizens of New Jersey. On the 7th of March, 1884, the complainant, being the owner of several patents, all of which relate to sweat-bands for hats or caps, the *746manufacture thereof, and the machinery used in making them, licensed the defendants to use the patents, on certain…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Root v. Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1882
  2. Insurance Co. v. WeideSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
  3. Goodyear v. Congress Rubber Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1856
  4. Woodworth v. WeedU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York · 1846

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Indiana Mfg. Co. v. J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1907
  2. Hazeltine Research Corp. v. Freed-Eisemann Radio Corp.District Court, E.D. New York · 1924
  3. Ruby v. Ebsary Gypsum Co.District Court, W.D. New York · 1929

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API