United States Consolidated Seeded Raisin Co. v. Griffin & Skelley Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of California. The plaintiff in error is a corporation created under the laws of New York. Prior to June 26, 1900, it was the owner of two certain patents for machines for seeding and processing raisins. Other persons and corporations at Fresno, Oal., engaged in the raisin-seeding business, owned certain other patents. Litigation had arisen between the owners of these patents.
Read the full summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of California. The plaintiff in error is a corporation created under the laws of New York. Prior to June 26, 1900, it was the owner of two certain patents for machines for seeding and processing raisins. Other persons and corporations at Fresno, Oal., engaged in the raisin-seeding business, owned certain other patents. Litigation had arisen between the owners of these patents. To end this litigation, and to avoid it in the future, an agreement was made on June 26, 1900, between the plaintiff in error, as the party of…
1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, Circuit Judge
The Circuit Court instructed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant in error, holding the contract void on three grounds: First, that it was contrary to public policy, in that it tends to create a monopoly; second, that it is prohibited by the provisions of section 1673 of the Civil Code of the State of California; and, third, that it was contrary to public policy, for the reason that it provided for oppressive litigation. That such a contract is not void as against public policy, in that it tends to create a monopoly, has been decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Bement v.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Bement v. National Harrow Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Oregon Steam Navigation Co. v. WinsorSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Columbia Wire Co. v. Freeman Wire Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri · 1895
3Cited by13 opinions
- Rubber Tire Wheel Co. v. Milwaukee Rubber Works Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1907
- United Shoe Machinery Co. v. La ChapelleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912
- Fox Film Corp. v. Ogden Theatre Co., Inc.Utah Supreme Court · 1932
- Butterick Publishing Co. v. RoseWisconsin Supreme Court · 1910
- Indiana Mfg. Co. v. J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1906
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.