Hostetter Co. v. Van Vorst

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

Hostetter Co. v. Van Vorst

62 F. 600, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 2902

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

DecidedJune 29, 1894

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 62 F. 600 (Hostetter Co. v. Van Vorst) 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

Hostetter Co. v. Van Vorst, 62 F. 600, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 2902 (circtsdny 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

WHEELER, District Judge.

This suit is brought for the alleged selling, or procuring to be sold, an imitation, produced by the defendant, as the genuine Hostetter’s bitters of the plaintiff. This is denied, and the principal question is whether this allegation is proved. Hostetter v. Fries, 17 Fed. 620, 21 Blatchf. 339; Hostetter Co. v. Brueggeman, etc., Co., 46 Fed. 188. The evidence shows well enough that the defendant sells the imitation as such, and that he would sell it to others, to be by them sold again for the genuine, if they would. It does not show any suggestion from him that it could be, nor any arrangement by him that it should be, so sold, but only his assent to suggestions that it might be. The selling of the imitation, as such, does not infringe upon the right of the plaintiff that it should not be sold as the genuine. The defendant owes no duty of preventing such sales; he is only bound not to make, or at most not to encourage, them. The proofs do not show encouragement, even, of them, and so fall short of sustaining this allegation, and of entitling the plaintiff to relief. The conduct of the defendant, however, so invited this litigation that he ought not, in equity, to have costs. Bill dismissed, without costs.

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

WHEELER, District Judge.

This suit is brought for the alleged selling, or procuring to be sold, an imitation, produced by the defendant, as the genuine Hostetter’s bitters of the plaintiff. This is denied, and the principal question is whether this allegation is proved. Hostetter v. Fries, 17 Fed. 620, 21 Blatchf. 339; Hostetter Co. v. Brueggeman, etc., Co., 46 Fed. 188. The evidence shows well enough that the defendant sells the imitation as such, and that he would sell it to others, to be by them sold again for the genuine, if they would. It does not show any suggestion from him that it could be, nor any arrangement by him that it should be, so sold, but only his assent to suggestions that it might be. The selling of the imitation, as such, does not infringe upon the right of the plaintiff that it should not be sold as the genuine. The defendant owes no duty of preventing such sales; he is only bound not to make, or at most not to encourage, them. The proofs do not show encouragement, even, of them, and so fall short of sustaining this allegation, and of entitling the plaintiff to relief. The conduct of the defendant, however, so invited this litigation that he ought not, in equity, to have costs. Bill dismissed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 F. 600, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 2902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hostetter-co-v-van-vorst-circtsdny-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack