Wooster v. Marks

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

Wooster v. Marks

30 F. Cas. 613, 17 Blatchf. 368, 5 Ban. & A. 56, 1879 U.S. App. LEXIS 2275

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

DecidedDecember 22, 1879

StatusPublished

This text of 30 F. Cas. 613 (Wooster v. Marks) 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

Wooster v. Marks, 30 F. Cas. 613, 17 Blatchf. 368, 5 Ban. & A. 56, 1879 U.S. App. LEXIS 2275 (circtsdny 1879).

Pincite

Opinion

WHEELER, District Judge.

Folding guides, for which the orator has a patent, have been used in the defendants’ manufactory. The only question in this case is, whether they have been so used there as that the defendants are themselves liable for the infringement. They were procured and used by a man, whom one of the defendants, in his testimony, calls “our man,” and who worked for them there and was paid for his labor by the piece, furnishing his own tools of this sort. They knew of this use of the guides, but not that they were patented, and stopped the use when they were informed of that fact. Under these circumstances, he was using the guides for them, in their business. The mode of payment made it none the less so; and they, at least, participated in the tort which constituted the infringement. An action at law would lie for this participation, and this bill in equity, which rests upon the same foundation, although, in some respects, for different relief, will lie also. The question is not at all as to the extent of infringement, but only as to the fact of infringement at all. Upon the evidence as to that, although it was fairly debatable, it is found that the defendants have infringed to some extent.

Let a decree be entered for an injunction .and an account, according to the prayer of •the bill, with costs.

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

WHEELER, District Judge.

Folding guides, for which the orator has a patent, have been used in the defendants’ manufactory. The only question in this case is, whether they have been so used there as that the defendants are themselves liable for the infringement. They were procured and used by a man, whom one of the defendants, in his testimony, calls “our man,” and who worked for them there and was paid for his labor by the piece, furnishing his own tools of this sort. They knew of this use of the guides, but not that they were patented, and stopped the use when they were informed of that fact. Under these circumstances, he was using the guides for them, in their business. The mode of payment made it none the less so; and they, at least, participated in the tort which constituted the infringement. An action at law would lie for this participation, and this bill in equity, which rests upon the same foundation, although, in some respects, for different relief, will lie also. The question is not at all as to the extent of infringement, but only as to the fact of infringement at all. Upon the evidence as to that, although it was fairly debatable, it is found that the defendants have infringed to some extent.

Let a decree be entered for an injunction .and an account, according to the prayer of •the bill, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 F. Cas. 613, 17 Blatchf. 368, 5 Ban. & A. 56, 1879 U.S. App. LEXIS 2275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wooster-v-marks-circtsdny-1879.