The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 256: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States, May-July, 1919. Page: 37
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
AMERICAN ELECTRIC W. CO. V. LALANCE & GROSJEAN MFG. CO. 37
established place for receiving and transmitting communications to or
from the company in New York, which is not enough for the plain-
 2. Is the defendant shown to have committed acts of infringe-
ment in Massachusetts? The course of business shown as above cer-
tainly involved no such acts, and, as has beta said, only one instance
appears of any departure from it whatever. On January 11, 1917,
one Landeck, employed for the purpose by the plaintiff, went into the
office in Bath's absence and prevailed on Miss Edwards, whom he
found there alone, to let him leave with her an order for certain ar-
ticles, which he indicated to her from a copy of the defendant's cata-
logue kept there by her for her personal use in performing her duties
as clerk and typewriter. He ordered them to be delivered to one Kam-
ins, at a store kept by Kamins at 504 Massachusetts avenue, in Cam-
bridge. Although she told him she would have to submit the order to
the defendant in New York, that it would take some time before the
articles could be shipped, and that he would receive from New York
an invoice when they were shipped, he also persuaded her to figure up
the amount of the catalogue prices and let him leave $12.36, the amount
thus ascertained, with her. Although she told him the billing was done
in New York, and that she had no way of making out a bill, he fur-
ther persuaded her to make out and give him a memorandum of said
articles and prices on an old letter head of the defendant, followed by
a receipt in its name and her initials. The money she afterward gave
to Bath, whose personal check she mailed to the New York office
with the order. 'Landeck had at the time no authority from Kamins,
who, however, afterward consented to receive the articles when they
came. They were subsequently shipped by the defendant from New
York, and reached Kamins April 2, 1917. Among them were articles
now produced as exhibits, welded according to the method of the pat-
A sale of infringing articles may no doubt be proof of infringement,
such as will warrant a preliminary injunction, notwithstanding that
it has been induced and procured by the plaintiff, who cannot, for that
reason, claim to have been damaged by it. But this is because of its
tendency to show a regular course of business involving infringement
and an intent to infringe Chicago, etc., Co. v. Philadelphia, etc., Co.
(C. C) 118 Fed. 852, Badische, etc., Co. v. Klipstein (C. C.) 125
Fed 536; Dick v Henrv (C. C) 149 Fed. 429, 430: Kessler, etc., Co.
v. Goldstrom, 177 Fed 392, 394, 101 C. C. A. 476., The circumstances
attending this alleged infringing sale prevent me from regarding it as
tending to show any such course of business or any such intent; and
I should not, therefore, consider it sufficient ground for a preliminary
injunction, supposing jurisdiction to exist: Nor can I consider it
proof of a completed infringing sale made in Massachusetts. Though
he left the money with Miss Edwards, who had no authority from the
defendant to take it, I think her statement that she would have to sub-
mit the order required Landeck to understand that the Thmpany was still
at liberty to refuse both the order and the money. I do not agree with
the plaintiff that her receipt of the money "nullified and set aside"
Here’s what’s next.
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legislative Document.
The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 256: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States, May-July, 1919., legislative document, 1919; Saint Paul, Minnesota. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc38827/m1/51/: accessed March 23, 2018), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.