Greene v. Buckley

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western New York

Greene v. Buckley

120 F. 955, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5321

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western New York

DecidedFebruary 24, 1902

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 120 F. 955 (Greene v. Buckley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Greene v. Buckley, 120 F. 955, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5321 (circtwdny 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

COXE, Circuit Judge.

The parties having so stipulated the court consented to hear this cause in conjunction with the cause against the Manhattan Refrigerating Company. 120 Fed. 952. The testimony being substantially identical the causes were argued together and, of course, the same general decree must be entered in each.

present cause a number individuals are made defendants apparently for the sole reason that they are officers of the infringing -corporations. The record has been expanded beyond all reasonable limits and it is exceedingly difficult to find the testimony bearing upon any given point. Such search as I have been able to make [956]*956fails to discover proof that these parties, as individuals, have infringed! the patent or done any act which renders them personally liable to-the complainants. I have also failed to discover proof that the corporations, with which these individuals are connected, are insolvent. . In these circumstances the bill must be dismissed as to the individual defendants. Consolidated Fastener Co. v. Columbian Fastener Co. (C. C.) 79 Fed. 795, 801; King v. Anderson (C. C.) 90 Fed. 500; Farmers’ Mfg. Co. v. Spruks Mfg. Co. (C. C.) 119 Fed. 594.

The complainants are entitled to the usual decree for an injunction* and an accounting against the defendant corporations.

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

COXE, Circuit Judge.

The parties having so stipulated the court consented to hear this cause in conjunction with the cause against the Manhattan Refrigerating Company. 120 Fed. 952. The testimony being substantially identical the causes were argued together and, of course, the same general decree must be entered in each.

present cause a number individuals are made defendants apparently for the sole reason that they are officers of the infringing -corporations. The record has been expanded beyond all reasonable limits and it is exceedingly difficult to find the testimony bearing upon any given point. Such search as I have been able to make [956]*956fails to discover proof that these parties, as individuals, have infringed! the patent or done any act which renders them personally liable to-the complainants. I have also failed to discover proof that the corporations, with which these individuals are connected, are insolvent. . In these circumstances the bill must be dismissed as to the individual defendants. Consolidated Fastener Co. v. Columbian Fastener Co. (C. C.) 79 Fed. 795, 801; King v. Anderson (C. C.) 90 Fed. 500; Farmers’ Mfg. Co. v. Spruks Mfg. Co. (C. C.) 119 Fed. 594.

The complainants are entitled to the usual decree for an injunction* and an accounting against the defendant corporations.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 F. 955, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greene-v-buckley-circtwdny-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack