Puritan Cordage Mills v. Sampson Cordage Works

Sixth Circuit

Puritan Cordage Mills v. Sampson Cordage Works

232 F. 138, 146 C.C.A. 330, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 1806

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedApril 14, 1916

DocketNo. 2796

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 232 F. 138 (Puritan Cordage Mills v. Sampson Cordage Works) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Puritan Cordage Mills v. Sampson Cordage Works, 232 F. 138, 146 C.C.A. 330, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 1806 (6th Cir. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

[1, 2] The decree adjudged unfair competition, awarded injunction, directed that defendant “now deliver up” for destruction any of the imitative articles “which it may have on hand,” and ordered a reference for an accounting of profits and damages. [139]*139This decree must be deemed interlocutory, upon the authority of Maas v. Lonstorf (C. C. A. 6th Cir.) 166 Fed. 41, 91 C. C. A. 627. TJie direction for destruction is only for incidental relief, and does not, beyond recall, dispose of the main controversy, as in Thomson v. Dean, 74 U. S. (7 Wall.) 342, 19 L. Ed. 94; if this' direction could distinguish from Maas v. Lonstorf, the burden would be on appellant to show that there were such articles on which the decree would thus take present final effect, and this burden is not met; and the statute permitting appeals from interlocutory orders has, as to this class of cases, removed the hardship which was the basis of the exception to the general rule that a decree is not final and appealable if a judicial accounting remains to be taken and reviewed.

Motion granted. The clerk will deliver to appellant, for use in a future appeal, all except five copies of the printed record.

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

PER CURIAM.

[1, 2] The decree adjudged unfair competition, awarded injunction, directed that defendant “now deliver up” for destruction any of the imitative articles “which it may have on hand,” and ordered a reference for an accounting of profits and damages. [139]*139This decree must be deemed interlocutory, upon the authority of Maas v. Lonstorf (C. C. A. 6th Cir.) 166 Fed. 41, 91 C. C. A. 627. TJie direction for destruction is only for incidental relief, and does not, beyond recall, dispose of the main controversy, as in Thomson v. Dean, 74 U. S. (7 Wall.) 342, 19 L. Ed. 94; if this' direction could distinguish from Maas v. Lonstorf, the burden would be on appellant to show that there were such articles on which the decree would thus take present final effect, and this burden is not met; and the statute permitting appeals from interlocutory orders has, as to this class of cases, removed the hardship which was the basis of the exception to the general rule that a decree is not final and appealable if a judicial accounting remains to be taken and reviewed.

Motion granted. The clerk will deliver to appellant, for use in a future appeal, all except five copies of the printed record.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 F. 138, 146 C.C.A. 330, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 1806, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/puritan-cordage-mills-v-sampson-cordage-works-ca6-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack