Birdsell v. Hagerstown Agr. Imp. Manuf'g Co.

3 F. Cas. 450, 1 Hughes 64
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maryland
DecidedMarch 15, 1877
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 3 F. Cas. 450 (Birdsell v. Hagerstown Agr. Imp. Manuf'g Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Birdsell v. Hagerstown Agr. Imp. Manuf'g Co., 3 F. Cas. 450, 1 Hughes 64 (circtdmd 1877).

Opinion

The following was the decree entered by the court:

BOND, Circuit Judge.

This cause coming on, etc., on petition of defendant for injunction against complainant, to restrain him from prosecuting or threatening to do so, suits against any vendee of defendant for use or sale of clover hullers made by defendant, and sold by them, and it appearing to court that complainant has threatened to bring such suits, while suit is pending by him in this court against defendants,. the manufacturers, the' court doth order that complainant be restrained from commencing prosecution, or threatening so to do, any suit against any vendee of defendants, for an alleged infringement of the letters patent involved in this case, and on which this case is brought, based on any user or sale by said vendee of any clover machine purchased of defendants. Provided, defendants within thirty days file a bond in the sum of $5000, with security to be approved by the court, for payment of any damages that may be adjudged against defendants in this suit, and shall also file a sworn monthly statement of the number of clover machines hereafter made and sold by them.

Both judges concurred in this.

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

Related

Stebler v. Riverside Heights Orange Growers' Ass'n
211 F. 985 (D. South Carolina, 1914)
Asbestos Shingle, Slate & Sheathing Co. v. H. W. Johns-Manville Co.
189 F. 611 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1911)
New York Filter Co. v. Schwarzwalder
58 F. 577 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1893)
Kelley v. Ypsilanti Dress-Stay Manuf'g Co.
44 F. 19 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Michigan, 1890)
Allis v. Stowell
16 F. 783 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Wisconsin, 1883)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 F. Cas. 450, 1 Hughes 64, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/birdsell-v-hagerstown-agr-imp-manufg-co-circtdmd-1877.