Dickerson v. Matheson

47 F. 319, 1891 U.S. App. LEXIS 1435
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York·Decided May 25, 1891·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Wallace, J.

I have held the motion for an interlocutory injunction in this cause undecided for several months, upon the supposition that the complainant proposed to apply for leave to submit supplemental depositions, or to dismiss his motion. In my judgment the right of the complainant to treat the defendants as infringers hinges upon the question of fact whether Domeier paid or sent his check for the benzo-purpurine bought by him for the defendants of the London agent of the Berlin company before ho received the invoice which gave notice that the patented article was sold on condition that it was not to be used or sold in the United States. I am unable to determine this question upon the depositions which have been submitted. The motion ought to be disposed of; and, as the complainant has not applied to dismiss it or reopen it for further depositions, and as the case made does not satisfy me that the goods were not paid for or a check given for them before Domeier received the invoice, the motion is denied.

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

Dickerson v. Matheson, 47 F. 319, 1891 U.S. App. LEXIS 1435 (circtsdny 1891).

47 F. 319 (Dickerson v. Matheson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dickerson v. Tinling
84 F. 192 (Eighth Circuit, 1897)