Hat-Sweat Manuf'g Co. v. Waring

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

Hat-Sweat Manuf'g Co. v. Waring

46 F. 87, 1891 U.S. App. LEXIS 1220

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1891

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 46 F. 87 (Hat-Sweat Manuf'g Co. v. Waring) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hat-Sweat Manuf'g Co. v. Waring, 46 F. 87, 1891 U.S. App. LEXIS 1220 (circtsdny 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

LacoMbe, Circuit Judge.

Should the defense set up by the defendants be made out by the proof, they would be entitled to a decree not simply denying complainant’s right to money damages, or an accounting, but also declaring the license upon which the suit is brought to be fraudulent and void, and directing its cancellation. The complainant is therefore, under the authorities, not entitled as of right to dismiss its own bill at this stage of the case. Electrical Accumulator Co. v. Brush Electric Co., 4 4 Fed. Rep. 602; Stevens v. Railroads, 4 Fed. Rep. 97. Nor, under all the circumstances, should it be allowed to do so. If complainant suffers default, defendants may take a decree dismissing the complaint, declaring the license void, and directing its cancellation; but such decree will, of course, show upon its face that it was entered upon [88]*88default. Should the complainant be unwilling to suffer default, the time to file briefs named in the former order is extended to and including April 6th, and they need not be printed.

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

LacoMbe, Circuit Judge.

Should the defense set up by the defendants be made out by the proof, they would be entitled to a decree not simply denying complainant’s right to money damages, or an accounting, but also declaring the license upon which the suit is brought to be fraudulent and void, and directing its cancellation. The complainant is therefore, under the authorities, not entitled as of right to dismiss its own bill at this stage of the case. Electrical Accumulator Co. v. Brush Electric Co., 4 4 Fed. Rep. 602; Stevens v. Railroads, 4 Fed. Rep. 97. Nor, under all the circumstances, should it be allowed to do so. If complainant suffers default, defendants may take a decree dismissing the complaint, declaring the license void, and directing its cancellation; but such decree will, of course, show upon its face that it was entered upon [88]*88default. Should the complainant be unwilling to suffer default, the time to file briefs named in the former order is extended to and including April 6th, and they need not be printed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 F. 87, 1891 U.S. App. LEXIS 1220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hat-sweat-manufg-co-v-waring-circtsdny-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack