TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Rumford Chemical Works v. Hygienic Chemical Co.

Rumford Chem. Works v. Hygienic Chem. Co., 154 F. 65 (3d Cir. 1907)
Download
Format
Include

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

Subsequent history: aff'd, Rumford Chem. Works v. Hygienic Chem. Co., 215 U.S. 156 (1909). (read from the later opinion; check before relying)

Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
April 26, 1907
Docket
No. 18
Judges
Buffington, Dallas, Gray
Citations
154 F. 6583 C.C.A. 1771907 U.S. App. LEXIS 4506
Headnotes
Patents — Suit eob Int-bingement — Evidence. Evidence in a suit for infringement of a patent held insufficient to show that the defendant was privy to a prior suit brought b.y complainant against others so as to render a deposition taken therein admissible against defendant.
Summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Buffington

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a decree entered by the Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey dismissing, for noninfringement, a bill in equity filed by the Rumford Chemical *66 Works which charged the Hygienic Chemical Company of New Jersey with infringement of a patent. The court below held there was no proof of infringement, and there is no error in its so holding, if the testimony of one Clotworthy was rightfully excluded. This excluded deposition of Clotworthy, now deceased, was taken in a suit in the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York ( 135 Fed. 331 and 134 Fed. 385 , 67 C. C. A. 367 ), wherein the Rumford Chemical Works, the present appellant, was complainant, and the New York Baking Powder Company et al., respondents. It is alleged the respondent in the present case aided in, and contributed to, the defense of that case. On that point, however, the proofs fail. There is no proof that the present respondent, the Hygienic Chemical Company of New Jersey contributed to the expense of the New York suit or bore the relation of privy or party to that litigation. While the Hygienic Chemical Company of New York did contribute to the defense, and one Heller, who was President of both companies, was a witness in that case, there is no sufficient proof to connect the present respondent with the defense of that case. We are therefore of opinion the court below rightly excluded Clotworthy’s testimony.

The decree of the court is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1909: 11921: 119092026peak 1909 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Rumford Chemical Works v. Hygienic Chemical Co.215 U.S. 156 (1909)
  2. Miller v. Electro Bleaching Gas Co.276 F. 379 (8th Cir. 1921)

Most recent

  1. Miller v. Electro Bleaching Gas Co.276 F. 379 (8th Cir. 1921)
  2. Rumford Chemical Works v. Hygienic Chemical Co.215 U.S. 156 (1909)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Rumford Chem. Works v. N.Y. Baking Powder Co., 134 F. 385 (2d Cir. 1904) 13
Am. Bridge Co. of N.Y. v. Camden Interstate Ry. Co., 135 F. 323 (4th Cir. 1904) 7

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