TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Puritan Cordage Mills v. Sampson Cordage Works

Puritan Cordage Mills v. Sampson Cordage Works, 232 F. 138 (6th Cir. 1916)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
April 14, 1916
Docket
No. 2796
Judges
Denison, Knappen
Citations
232 F. 138146 C.C.A. 3301916 U.S. App. LEXIS 1806
Disposition
Dismissed.
Headnotes
1. Appeal and Eeror &wkey;>339(2) — Time eoe Appeal — Interlocutory Decree. A decree adjudging unfair competition, awarding an injunction, directing that defendant deliver up for destruction any imitative articles which he may have on hand, and ordering a reference for accounting of profits and damages, is interlocutory, not final, and an appeal not taken therefrom till more than 30 days after it was entered must be dismissed. [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 1884; Dec. Dig. 357(l) — Appealable Decree — Burden op Proof. If the direction for destruction of imitative articles renders the decree final as to such articles, the burden is on appellant to show that there were such articles. [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 192S; Dec. Dig. &wkey;357(l)J
Summary
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Kentucky; Walter Evans, Judge. Suit by the Sampson Cordage Works against the Puritan Cordage Mills. Decree for complainant, and defendant appeals. On motion to dismiss, because not taken within 30 days.

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

Opinion of the Court

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

PER CURIAM.

[1, 2] The decree adjudged unfair competition, awarded injunction, directed that defendant “now deliver up” for destruction any of the imitative articles “which it may have on hand,” and ordered a reference for an accounting of profits and damages. *139 This decree must be deemed interlocutory, upon the authority of Maas v. Lonstorf (C. C. A. 6th Cir.) 166 Fed. 41 , 91 C. C. A. 627 . TJie direction for destruction is only for incidental relief, and does not, beyond recall, dispose of the main controversy, as in Thomson v. Dean, 74 U. S. (7 Wall.) 342 , 19 L. Ed. 94 ; if this' direction could distinguish from Maas v. Lonstorf, the burden would be on appellant to show that there were such articles on which the decree would thus take present final effect, and this burden is not met; and the statute permitting appeals from interlocutory orders has, as to this class of cases, removed the hardship which was the basis of the exception to the general rule that a decree is not final and appealable if a judicial accounting remains to be taken and reviewed.

Motion granted. The clerk will deliver to appellant, for use in a future appeal, all except five copies of the printed record.

How later courts describe this case

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

1928: 119282026peak 1928 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Gardner v. Grand Beach Co.29 F.2d 481 (6th Cir. 1928)

Most recent

  1. Gardner v. Grand Beach Co.29 F.2d 481 (6th Cir. 1928)

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
Thomson v. Dean, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 342 (1869) 57
Maas v. Lonstorf, 166 F. 41 (6th Cir. 1908) 19

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