Societé Fabriques de Produits Chimiques de Thann et de Mulhouse v. Franco-American Trading Co.

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

Societé Fabriques de Produits Chimiques de Thann et de Mulhouse v. Franco-American Trading Co.

82 F. 439, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 2765

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

DecidedAugust 23, 1897

StatusPublished

This text of 82 F. 439 (Societé Fabriques de Produits Chimiques de Thann et de Mulhouse v. Franco-American Trading Co.) 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

Societé Fabriques de Produits Chimiques de Thann et de Mulhouse v. Franco-American Trading Co., 82 F. 439, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 2765 (circtsdny 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

I do not think a preliminary injunction should be granted restraining defendants from disposing of the goods purchased at the sale by the United States marshal, when the representative of the complainant was present at the sale, saw the goods bid for, and sold to defendants, and gave no notification to any one that such goods were claimed to infringe complainant’s patent. The circumstance that the marshal told complainant’s representative not to make any such statement does not change the situation. The marshal had neither power nor right to shut complainant off from the assertion of his claim in the presence of the bidders. In fact, it would have been fairer to all concerned if the marshal had himself announced that complainant insisted that the goods infringed his patent. No doubt, had such announcement been made, only a nominal bid for the goods would have been obtained; but that is immaterial. The federal government is not supposed to increase its revenues by selling goods, seized for undervaluation, in such a way as to impose upon bidders by what practically amounts to a misrepresentation. Motion denied.

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

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

I do not think a preliminary injunction should be granted restraining defendants from disposing of the goods purchased at the sale by the United States marshal, when the representative of the complainant was present at the sale, saw the goods bid for, and sold to defendants, and gave no notification to any one that such goods were claimed to infringe complainant’s patent. The circumstance that the marshal told complainant’s representative not to make any such statement does not change the situation. The marshal had neither power nor right to shut complainant off from the assertion of his claim in the presence of the bidders. In fact, it would have been fairer to all concerned if the marshal had himself announced that complainant insisted that the goods infringed his patent. No doubt, had such announcement been made, only a nominal bid for the goods would have been obtained; but that is immaterial. The federal government is not supposed to increase its revenues by selling goods, seized for undervaluation, in such a way as to impose upon bidders by what practically amounts to a misrepresentation. Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 F. 439, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 2765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/societe-fabriques-de-produits-chimiques-de-thann-et-de-mulhouse-v-circtsdny-1897.