Morss v. Domestic Sewing-Machine Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts

Morss v. Domestic Sewing-Machine Co.

38 F. 482, 1889 U.S. App. LEXIS 2151

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts

DecidedApril 13, 1889

StatusPublished

This text of 38 F. 482 (Morss v. Domestic Sewing-Machine Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Morss v. Domestic Sewing-Machine Co., 38 F. 482, 1889 U.S. App. LEXIS 2151 (circtdma 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Colt, J.

The real question upon this motion is whether exhibit known as the “Domestio Dress Form ” is not in substance the same as exhibit defendant’s Latest Style Form, which has been adjudged, upon motion for a preliminary injunction in this case, (37 Fed. Rep. 352,) to infringe the second claim of the Hall patent. It seems to me that the exhibit Domestic. Dress Form comes clearly within the decisions of this court in Morss v. Ufford, 34 Fed. Rep. 37, and in the present suit. I do not feel called upon to state again the grounds upon which the conclusions of the court were based. I am satisfied, however, that the defendant has violated the injunction order of this court, issued in this case, and should therefore be adjudged in contempt. In view, however, of the decision of Judge Benedict, (Morss v. Manchester, 32 Fed. Rep. 282.) who apparently gives a narrower construction to the Hall patent than this court is willing to accept," I do not think the defendant guilty of willful contempt, and I shall therefore only impose upon it a nominal fine of $10, together with the costs upon this petition, to be paid within 10 days after the entry of this order.

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

Colt, J.

The real question upon this motion is whether exhibit known as the “Domestio Dress Form ” is not in substance the same as exhibit defendant’s Latest Style Form, which has been adjudged, upon motion for a preliminary injunction in this case, (37 Fed. Rep. 352,) to infringe the second claim of the Hall patent. It seems to me that the exhibit Domestic. Dress Form comes clearly within the decisions of this court in Morss v. Ufford, 34 Fed. Rep. 37, and in the present suit. I do not feel called upon to state again the grounds upon which the conclusions of the court were based. I am satisfied, however, that the defendant has violated the injunction order of this court, issued in this case, and should therefore be adjudged in contempt. In view, however, of the decision of Judge Benedict, (Morss v. Manchester, 32 Fed. Rep. 282.) who apparently gives a narrower construction to the Hall patent than this court is willing to accept," I do not think the defendant guilty of willful contempt, and I shall therefore only impose upon it a nominal fine of $10, together with the costs upon this petition, to be paid within 10 days after the entry of this order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 F. 482, 1889 U.S. App. LEXIS 2151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morss-v-domestic-sewing-machine-co-circtdma-1889.