Hatch v. Hall

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

Hatch v. Hall

22 F. 438, 1884 U.S. App. LEXIS 2550

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

DecidedDecember 4, 1884

StatusPublished

This text of 22 F. 438 (Hatch v. Hall) 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

Hatch v. Hall, 22 F. 438, 1884 U.S. App. LEXIS 2550 (circtsdny 1884).

Pincite

Opinion

WheeleR, J.

The right of the defendant to the orators’ patent for the territory comprised within the state of New York would seem to afford him. no right to sell for use, within the territory still owned by the orators, the patented articles made by him in his territory. This is shown in the opinion of McKennan, J., in Hatch v. Adams, ante, 434. But no good reason yet appears why he should not be permitted to advertise the articles and sell them in New York, although the purchasers may take them into the orators’ territory. The citizenship of the defendant within this district gives the right to proceed here against him personally to prevent infringement elsewhere. The motion for an injunction is granted so far as to restrain sales by the defendant or his agents within the orators’ territory, and denied as to the residue.

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

WheeleR, J.

The right of the defendant to the orators’ patent for the territory comprised within the state of New York would seem to afford him. no right to sell for use, within the territory still owned by the orators, the patented articles made by him in his territory. This is shown in the opinion of McKennan, J., in Hatch v. Adams, ante, 434. But no good reason yet appears why he should not be permitted to advertise the articles and sell them in New York, although the purchasers may take them into the orators’ territory. The citizenship of the defendant within this district gives the right to proceed here against him personally to prevent infringement elsewhere. The motion for an injunction is granted so far as to restrain sales by the defendant or his agents within the orators’ territory, and denied as to the residue.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 F. 438, 1884 U.S. App. LEXIS 2550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hatch-v-hall-circtsdny-1884.