TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

American Box Mach. Co. v. Crosman

Am. Box Mach. Co. v. Crosman, 61 F. 888 (1st Cir. 1894)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
May 14, 1894
Docket
No. 76
Judges
Colt, Nelson, Webb
Citations
61 F. 88810 C.C.A. 1461894 U.S. App. LEXIS 2252
Disposition
Complainant now appeals from this decree.
Summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts. This was a suit for the specific performance of a contract by the American Box Machine Company against George A. Crosman and others, in which there was a decree (57 Fed. 1021) dismissing the bill as against Crosman and the Lynn Box Machine Company, but granting an injunction against the remaining respondents.

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.

In this case the plaintiff below, who is the appellant, appeals from certain parts of the decree of the circuit court. The errors assigned are as follows:

“(1) The court erred in bolding that the bill of complaint be dismissed as against the defendants Crosman and the Lynn Box Machine Company, with costs. (2) The court erred in refusing an accounting of damages and profits.”

As to the first assignment of error, we think it should be overruled, for the reasons stated in the opinion of the circuit judge. With respect to the second assignment of error, the court below having decreed that the remaining defendants either manufactured or sold one or more two-strip machines, or machines which may be operated as such, in violation of the agreement of January 23, 1888, and having directed a perpetual injunction to issue against *889 them, we think that the complainant is entitled, according to the usual course of equity, to a reference to a master. The invasion of the complainant’s right having been established, and an injunction ordered, it ma.y be presumed that there are some profits or damages to be recovered. The decree of the circuit court is modified so as to order a reference to a master to take an account of profits, and damages, if any, in addition thereto, against the defendants, except Grosman and the Lynn I ¡ox Machine Company, and in all other respects said decree is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1900: 11907: 119002026peak 1900 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Indiana Mfg. Co. v. J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co.154 F. 365 (7th Cir. 1907)
  2. Bradford v. Belknap Motor Co.105 F. 63 (1900)

Most recent

  1. Indiana Mfg. Co. v. J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co.154 F. 365 (7th Cir. 1907)
  2. Bradford v. Belknap Motor Co.105 F. 63 (1900)

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