Rubber Tip Pencil Co. v. Hovey

New York Supreme Court

Rubber Tip Pencil Co. v. Hovey

9 Abb. Pr. 74

DecidedSeptember 15, 1870

StatusPublished

This text of 9 Abb. Pr. 74 (Rubber Tip Pencil Co. v. Hovey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rubber Tip Pencil Co. v. Hovey, 9 Abb. Pr. 74 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1870).

Pincite

Opinion

Ingraham, J.

Whether or not the defendant is violating a patent, is not material in this action.

. The three instruments are to be construed together as one instrument. They all relate to the same subject-[77]*77matter, were made at the same time, and cannot well be carried out separately. Both parties seem to have considered that both agreements had been violated, and claim, on the part of each, that one was void.

Under these circumstances, I see no propriety in continuing the injunction on one of them while the plaintiff claims that the other has ceased to have any validity.

Motion granted, costs to abide event.

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

Ingraham, J.

Whether or not the defendant is violating a patent, is not material in this action.

. The three instruments are to be construed together as one instrument. They all relate to the same subject-[77]*77matter, were made at the same time, and cannot well be carried out separately. Both parties seem to have considered that both agreements had been violated, and claim, on the part of each, that one was void.

Under these circumstances, I see no propriety in continuing the injunction on one of them while the plaintiff claims that the other has ceased to have any validity.

Motion granted, costs to abide event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 Abb. Pr. 74, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rubber-tip-pencil-co-v-hovey-nysupct-1870.