TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

L. P. Larson, Jr., Co. v. Wm. Wrigley, Jr., Co.

L. P. Larson, Jr., Company v. Wm. Wrigley, Jr., Company

L. P. Larson, Jr., Co. v. Wm. Wrigley, Jr., Co., 277 U.S. 97 (1928)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
May 14, 1928
Docket
No. 603
Judges
Holmes
Citations
277 U.S. 9748 S. Ct. 44972 L. Ed. 8001928 U.S. LEXIS 678

Opinion — Nolmes

Mr. Justice Nolmes delivered the opinion of the Court.-.

. ^ There has been long litigation between the parties in this suit, the last stage of which appears in 20 F. (2d) 830. The Wrigley Company was ordered to account for net profits on sales of its ‘ Doublemint ’ gum in a package dress that infringed the Larson Company’s ‘ Wintermint ’ gum package. During the accounting, questions arose that were decided by the Circuit Court of Appeals. To review one of these questions a writ of certiorari was granted by this Court. That question is whether, as held below with modifications that need not be mentioned, the Wrigley Company should be allowed to deduct the federal income and excess profits taxes from the profits with which it is to be charged.

No doubt there are cases in which such a deduction would be proper. But the question cannot be answered by the merely formal reply that if the Larson Company chooses to make the Wrigley Company its agent or trustee ex maleficio and to demand the profits made by the agent it must take the burden with the benefit and can have no-more than the agent made in fact. To call'the infringer an agent or.trustee is not to state a fact but merely to indicate a mode of approach and an imperfect analogy by which the wrongdoer will be made to hand over the pro *100 ceeds of his wrong. Circumstances will affect the conclusion, including in them the knowledge and the conduct of the party charged. It would be unjust to charge an infringer with the gross amount of his sales without allowing him for the materials and labor that were necessary to produce the things sold, but it does not follow that he should be allowed what he paid for the chance to do what he knew that he had no right to do. That is the position of the Wrigley Company as we understand the findings in the successive stages of this suit. 253 Fed. Rep. 914, 916. 275 Fed. Rep. 535, 537, 538. 5 F. (2d) 731, 739. 20 F. (2d) 830, 831. Even if the only relief that the Wrigley Company can get is a deduction from gross income when the amount of its liability’ is finally determined, the Larson Company will have to pay a tax on the Wrigley profits when it receives them, and in a case of what has been found to have been one of conscious and deliberate wrongdoing, we think it just that'the further deduction should not be allowed.

Decree as to allowance of federal taxes reversed.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 4 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 46 cases

View all citing references →
1930: 21934: 11935: 31936: 11937: 21938: 11939: 21940: 11941: 11942: 11944: 11949: 11950: 11951: 11957: 41959: 11963: 11965: 21970: 21979: 11980: 21984: 11994: 11997: 21998: 12000: 12001: 12007: 22009: 22015: 12017: 12020: 119302026peak 1957 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Weaver v. Burger King Corp. (In re Weaver)219 B.R. 890 (Bankr. D. Mont. 1998)
  2. Carter Products, Inc. v. Colgate-Palmolive Company214 F. Supp. 383 (D. Maryland 1963)
  3. John B. Stetson Co. v. Stephen L. Stetson Co.58 F. Supp. 586 (S.D.N.Y. 1944)
  4. Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc.525 F. Supp. 2d 558 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)
  5. Locklin v. Day-Glo Color Corp.429 F.2d 873 (7th Cir. 1970)
  6. Sammons v. Colonial Press, Inc.126 F.2d 341 (1st Cir. 1942)

Most recent

  1. Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc.590 U.S. 212 (2020)
  2. Playnation Play Sys., Inc. v. Velex Corp.325 F. Supp. 3d 1354 (N.D. Ga. 2017)
  3. Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.131 F. Supp. 3d 946 (N.D. Cal. 2015)
  4. Mary Kay, Inc. v. Weber661 F. Supp. 2d 632 (N.D. Tex. 2009)
  5. Fendi Adele S.R.L. v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp.642 F. Supp. 2d 276 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)
  6. Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc.525 F. Supp. 2d 558 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list