Goodyear v. Phelps

10 F. Cas. 711, 3 Blatchf. 91, 1853 U.S. App. LEXIS 694
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York·Decided November 28, 1853·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

NELSON, Circuit Justice

(after disposing of various points raised by the defendants). A point has been made, that the defendants are not liable for the infringement charged, as the only participation alleged in the same is as stockholders of an incorporated company, which company is engaged in manufacturing and selling the patented article. However that may be, it appears that the defendants are either directors of the company, who have the management and superintendence of the business, and under whose direction the articles are manufactured and sold, or are the agents of the same, concerned in conducting the business. On this ground, I am of opinion that they are responsible, and are properly made parties defendants. Injunction ordered.

[For other cases involving this patent, see note to Goodyear v. Central R. Co., Case No. 5,563.]

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

Goodyear v. Phelps, 10 F. Cas. 711, 3 Blatchf. 91, 1853 U.S. App. LEXIS 694 (circtndny 1853).

10 F. Cas. 711 (Goodyear v. Phelps) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hitchcock v. American Plate Glass Co.
259 F. 948 (Third Circuit, 1919)
Mergenthaler Linotype Co. v. Ridder
65 F. 853 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1895)
Cahoone Barnet Manuf'g Co. v. Rubber & Celluloid Harness Co.
45 F. 582 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey, 1891)