C. L. King & Co. v. Inlander

133 F. 416, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5369
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois
DecidedJanuary 11, 1902
DocketNo. 25,997
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 133 F. 416 (C. L. King & Co. v. Inlander) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
C. L. King & Co. v. Inlander, 133 F. 416, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5369 (circtndil 1902).

Opinion

KOHLSAAT, District Judge.

The bill herein asks relief against defendant (1) for infringement of complainant’s patent, and (2) for unfair competition in trade in the use by defendant of the article alleged to be protected by said patent. No diverse citizenship is shown. The bill sets up two distinct causes of action, though relating to the same subject-matter. The ground of federal jurisdiction is distinct as to each cause of action. While it might be that a federal court could properly, in its discretion, permit the joinder of said causes of action, had it jurisdiction of each, yet it could not obtain jursdiction of a distinct cause of action by this method. Complainant’s citations touching ancillary jurisdiction are not applicable.

The demurrer to the bill is sustained on the ground of multifariousness, and, as the motion for a preliminary injunction is based solely upon the unfair competition phase of the bill, said motion is denied.

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

Related

Hanna v. Brictson Mfg. Co.
62 F.2d 139 (Eighth Circuit, 1932)
Stanley Mfg. Co. v. Art Metalable Corp.
47 F.2d 792 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1931)
Vogue Co. v. Vogue Hat Co.
12 F.2d 991 (Sixth Circuit, 1926)
Unit Const. Co. v. Huskey Mfg. Co.
241 F. 129 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1917)
Shrauger v. Phillip Bernard Co.
240 F. 131 (N.D. Iowa, 1917)
Schiebel Toy & Novelty Co. v. Clark
217 F. 760 (Sixth Circuit, 1914)
Ludwigs v. Payson Mfg. Co.
206 F. 60 (Seventh Circuit, 1913)
Johnston v. Brass Goods Mfg. Co.
201 F. 368 (E.D. New York, 1912)
Bernstein v. Danwitz
190 F. 604 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1911)
Cushman v. Atlantis Fountain Pen Co.
164 F. 94 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
133 F. 416, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/c-l-king-co-v-inlander-circtndil-1902.