Bell & Co. v. Singer Manufacturing Co.

65 Ga. 452
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedSeptember 15, 1880
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 65 Ga. 452 (Bell & Co. v. Singer Manufacturing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bell & Co. v. Singer Manufacturing Co., 65 Ga. 452 (Ga. 1880).

Opinion

Hawkins, J ustice.

This was an application for an injunction before his honor, Judge Hillyer, of the Atlanta circuit. The bill charged as follows:

1. That your orators are merchants and traders, dealing in the buying and selling of sewing machines, and more especially of a machine known as the Stewart Sewing Machine, and which is manufactured by the Henry Stewart Manufacturing Company of New York, and is sold exclusively by said company to your orators and no one else, in the states of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and Florida; that your orators have been doing a large business in said states in the sale of said Stewart machines, amounting'to sixty-five thousand dollars, or some other large sum per annum ; that in building up said trade in said states your orators have spent large sums of money and much labor and time, and have secured a large patronage in the business.

2. That the said Singer Manufacturing Company, by its officers, agents, servants, attorneys, workmen, employes and confederates, in order to injure, damage, harrass and oppress your orators in their business of selling and disposing of the said Stewart machines, as purchased from said Henry Stewart Manufacturing Company, to their patrons and customers in said states of South Carolina, Georgia, Florida and Alabama, has been since the fifteenth day of May, 1880, and is now wrongfully and maliciously interfering with and injuring the sale of said Stewart machines by your orators, by threats and misrepresentations to the public and the customers of your orators, by falsely and maliciously publishing and printing a letter entitled, “Circular Letter No. 77,” and signed by the defendant, which has been delivered to all of its agents, and by them to the customers who buy by the wholesale from your orators said Stewart machines; that in said Circular Letter, No. 77, the said defendant declares falsely and [454]*454maliciously, that “all persons making, selling or using any infringement of the letters patent of the said defendant, will be liable as infringers, and may look to be prosecuted accordingly; that suit has already been brought, and an injunction in the case of the said defendant against the said Henry Stewart Manufacturing Company, and you (meaning the officers and agents of the defendant) are requested for the present to furnish us with the names of all parties in your territory, who are offering to sell the Stewart machine, that they may be served with proper legal notice ; as this notice is in the form of an injunction that will effectually restrain the further sale of said Stewart sewing machines it is important to you and to us, that the names called for be furnished at once,” all of which will more fully appear by reference to a copy of said Circular Letter No. 77 hereto attached as a part of this bill marked “Exhibit A,” which your oratox's pray may be taken as a part of this bill of complaint, and beg the usual leave of refex'ence to the same.

3. Your oratoi's aver and charge that they have not, and are not now infringing upon the patent right of the defendant in buying'and selling said machines; nor have the customers of your orators in the said states done so at any time in the buying and selling or using said Stewart machines, and that all the statements, falsely and maliciously made in said Circular Letter No. 77, going to show that your orators or their customers have no right to buy and sell or use said Stewart machines, are absolutely false in every pax'ticulax-, and that the statement that your orators and all persons are restrained from buying, selling, or otherwise using said machines are false and malicious, and no such injunction in fact exists against your orators or their customers, or against the said Henry Stewart Manufacturing Company, in said states, and the said Circular Letter No. 77, and the statements thex'ein contained, have been sent out and cixxulated among the customers of your orators for the purpose of alarming them by [455]*455threats of litigation, and thus breaking down the business of your orators.

4. Your orators further charge that the said defendant, by its officers, agents, servants, attorneys, workmen, employes and confederates, are falsely pretending to serve an injunction from the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York in its favor, against the said Henry Stewart Manufacturing Company, and is serving a printed copy of the same upon all the customers of your orators; and upon all persons who are buying, selling, or otherwise using said Stewart machines, a copy of which is hereto attached and marked “ Exhibit B ” of this bill; and your orators pray that the same may be taken as a part of this bill of complaint, and also beg the usual leave of reference thereto when necessary. That the said defendant, by its agents, by serving said injunction on the customers and patrons of your orators and all persons using said machines, they falsely and maliciously represent to them that the same is of force in said states of Georgia, Florida, South Carolina and Alabama, and if they violate the terms of the same, they will be proceeded against for a violation of said pretended injunction, by means of which the customers and patrons of your orators are alarmed and are refusing to buy said sewing machines from your orators, when heretofore they have bought largely. Your orators aver that, as stated above, there is no injunction of force against your orators, or their customers, or against the said Henry Stewart Manufacturing Company in said states, or any other proceeding that prevents your orators and all others who buy, sell or-otherwise use said Stewart machines' from buying and selling said machine in said states.

5. That the said defendant is manufacturing sewing machines and selling the same in the said states of South Carolina, Florida, Georgia and Alabama, and has a patent right on some particular portion of the machines made and sold by it, and that there is no part or parcel of said Stew[456]*456art machines which is an infringement on the patent right of the defendant.

6. That by the wrongful and fraudulent acts, as above set forth, of the defendant, your orators have been, and are now being, greatly damaged, to the extent of almost breaking down of their business, which damages, caused as aforesaid, are irreparable and cannot be ascertained by a court of law.

7. That the said defendant is a non-resident corporation, and organized under the laws of the state of New York, or some other state, and having a place of business and an office in the city of Atlanta, county of Fulton, and state of Georgia.

8. All of which actings and doings are contrary to equity and good conscience, and, tend to the manifest wrong and oppression of your orators.

9. In tender consideration whereof and for as much as your oratoi's have no adequate and complete remedy at law, and can only have relief in a court of equity, where matters of this nature are properly cognizable and relievable, your orators pray that a writ of injunction be granted and issued by your honor perpetually restraining and enjoining the said defendant and its officers, agents, servants, attorneys, employes and confederates, and each and every one of them, under a certain penalty to be named by your honor, from publishing said “Circular Letter No.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Jordan v. O'Connor
27 Abb. N. Cas. 376 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1891)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
65 Ga. 452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-co-v-singer-manufacturing-co-ga-1880.