Knox Rock-Blasting Co. v. Rairdon Stone Co.
This text of 87 F. 969 (Knox Rock-Blasting Co. v. Rairdon Stone Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The motion to strike the defendant’s plea from the files must be sustained. To a bill in the usual form, charging infringement of a patent, the defendant pleads that during a certain period the patented device was experimented with by the defendant by consent of the complainant, and that with respect to other occasions it did not infringe. A plea should, state some single objection to the plaintiff’s case which would be a complete defense either to the whole bill or to some distinct part of it. This plea does neither, but consists of matter which would be a defense for some of the period covered by the allegations of the bill and answers for the rest of the period. It has been several times .decided that a defense by plea is inappropriate to this class of cases unless in very special circumstances, and I think the objections to it; are re-enforced in this case by the general rule of equity pleading to which I have referred. Sharp v. Reissner, 9 Fed. 445; Hubbell v. De Land, 14 Fed. 471-474; Korn v. Wiebusch, 33 Fed. 50; Union Switch & Signal Co. v. Philadelphia & R. R. Co., 69 Fed. 833-835; Chisholm v. Johnson, 84 Fed. 381. Such cases as Leatherbee v. Brown, 69 Fed. 590, are distinguishable. There the whole matter of [970]*970defense in the case consisted of a single point, and the cases fall within the exception to the general rule above stated. The motion is sustained. Leave is given to answer within 20 days.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
87 F. 969, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 2764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knox-rock-blasting-co-v-rairdon-stone-co-circtsdoh-1898.