Huber v. Myers Sanitary Depot

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

Huber v. Myers Sanitary Depot

34 F. 752, 1888 U.S. App. LEXIS 2358

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

DecidedApril 16, 1888

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 34 F. 752 (Huber v. Myers Sanitary Depot) 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

Huber v. Myers Sanitary Depot, 34 F. 752, 1888 U.S. App. LEXIS 2358 (circtsdny 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Lacombe, J.

The complainant Huber is sole owner of letters patent No. 260,232. The complainant Boyle is sole owner of letters patent No. 255,485.. Huber is also exclusive licensee of Boyle’s patent. The defendant manufactures and sells machines which, it is alleged, infringe ■both patents. Defendant demurs for misjoinder of parties. The point raised is a new one, and in determining it the “court is governed by those analogies which seeip best founded in general convenience, and will best promote the administration of justice, without multiplying unnecessary litigation on the one hand,-or drawing suitors into unnecessary expenses [753]*753on tbe other.” Hayes v. Dayton, 8 Fed. Rep. 704. The complainant Huber, if sole owner of both patents, could in a single suit enjoin an apparatus which infringed both. Noarse v. Allen, 4. Blatchf. 376. He is in fact the sole owner of the one, and, except for the payment of his royalties, entitled to the; whole beneficial interest in the other. As exclusive licensee, however, he is required to join the owner of the legal title. North v. Kershaw, 4 Blatchf. 70. It would, however, unnecessarily multiply expensive litigation to hold that the invariable consequence oí thus bringing in the owner must be to compel the complainant to bring two actions, instead of one, to suppress a single infringing apparatus. The demurrer is overruled.

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

Lacombe, J.

The complainant Huber is sole owner of letters patent No. 260,232. The complainant Boyle is sole owner of letters patent No. 255,485.. Huber is also exclusive licensee of Boyle’s patent. The defendant manufactures and sells machines which, it is alleged, infringe ■both patents. Defendant demurs for misjoinder of parties. The point raised is a new one, and in determining it the “court is governed by those analogies which seeip best founded in general convenience, and will best promote the administration of justice, without multiplying unnecessary litigation on the one hand,-or drawing suitors into unnecessary expenses [753]*753on tbe other.” Hayes v. Dayton, 8 Fed. Rep. 704. The complainant Huber, if sole owner of both patents, could in a single suit enjoin an apparatus which infringed both. Noarse v. Allen, 4. Blatchf. 376. He is in fact the sole owner of the one, and, except for the payment of his royalties, entitled to the; whole beneficial interest in the other. As exclusive licensee, however, he is required to join the owner of the legal title. North v. Kershaw, 4 Blatchf. 70. It would, however, unnecessarily multiply expensive litigation to hold that the invariable consequence oí thus bringing in the owner must be to compel the complainant to bring two actions, instead of one, to suppress a single infringing apparatus. The demurrer is overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 F. 752, 1888 U.S. App. LEXIS 2358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huber-v-myers-sanitary-depot-circtsdny-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack