New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-05-09
la " INTELLIGENCE.
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT.
DECISION ~ The ISDiA RuBBER CASES.
Reported for The y. \. Tribune.

Charles Goodvear agt. Bouru Brown.
THIS case was bill in Equity in which the painiif
sued the defendants for infringing his Nucanzing In
dia Rubber Patent, and was commenced IN leJJ, ana
Injunction prayed for, and was granted by Judge
Nelson To prevent the delivery OF quantity ot shoes
worth about $4,000. Pending this injunction the
shoes were taken by process from the State Courts IN
behalf of the purchaser and the present case came up
on a motion by plaintiff 10 amend the biil-lt appear
ing that other parties had purchased Goodyears ex-
elusive right to manufacture lndia rubber SHOES De,
fore the suit WAS commenced and necessarily should
be PARTIES 10 the same. The defendants objected to
the other parties being made plaintiffs upon the ground
that il would change the entire cause OF action as the
amendment showed, and also moved that the nlunc-
ton be dissolved. The case was argued by james L.
Brady for the plaintiff and n. Richardson for the
defendants.
The Court Nelson, Judge delivered the following
opinion:
II would n eject be the Institution Of suit against these
defendants materially different from the preset one pom as 70
compliments and rights Of action This exceeds the province OF
amendment held by the Supreme Court OF the United
3 The preliminary injunction heretofore issued must be dis
solved the supported b. atdays shows thtt the
shoes question made under license from the complain
ant the suit The motion Also for further injunction must
M. Homer Jrdse Nelson also delivered an opinion action
in which the Ford Rubber Company aad others Tsrq pan
joined with Charles Goodyear against han aa
Bourn Brown OF Providence n l. i2, al nsse
merit Of the Goodyear NulcanlEng lnca-kuober Patent
The plaintiffs moved for injunction 20 restrain the defend
the further prosecution OF their business which Is car
and ~ Richardson tor the defendants
Judge Nelson fled the following opinion on sliurlsy =.
subpoena appearance be entered aud putting IN an
i unmPoran therefore to inquire into the regularity
2 The motion for the injunction be denied The
.ho that he defendants are residents Of another jurisdiction,
and also carry on the business which scaimed 10 be inooon
OF plaintiff. patent there and consequently beyond e process
Of INJUNCTION the --ueng Of would therefore BE- Imperative
ard ysele n psntih desire enjon the defendants they
their bill in the jurisdiction where the business com
The following gentlemen have been drawn the Petit jury
panel The Nay Term 70 SoT s, lh INST vi s Esd
Daniel Phalen j. W. thiro Japss , E"vF En0Ii}spn
Jackson Earl Douglas, j. smelling, T. H. Mernck y turner
J. Emery Ernst Nm e. Lyon samuel l rsrIy, litu' M,I
Fsarns r. Clearwater A. NJ Clement g. +. Paterson John
Morse p squrss, r. Below Ransom Bemaa, & Adams
Wm smith Richard Maxim !, Emmett, Jr: VIM Nil,!ow J.
C. Wine : n. stubbs. A. NJ. Whllock, T. l. Van Norden,
John Carleton, x. W ardelL
SUPREME CoURT-MAY s-GssER,L TEsM-Beore Judges
MITCHELL, CLEskE and CowLEs
KNICKFRBOCKER BANK.
In the OF the application Of the ned states Trust
Company Of New-l ork, Receiver Of the KnekerbockeI
Savings Institution tr the appointment Of Receiver o
Knckebocker Savings Institution and the hnekeFbocker
OPINION.
MITCHELL. 1.-The Bank became insolyent, and
anuicaton was mede TO one OF the Justices OF this
Cont for the appointment Of Receiver under the ACT
of 1919 CHI 226 The United States Trust Company
was apponted Receiver by an order entitled a. al
Sneciai Term That Company had been previously
afnomted Receiver of the Knickerbocker SqrsHgs
Inittution and in that capacity had sued the BANK,
and claimed that al s. 600 were due by the Bank 70
the Savings Institution; while the BANK dispateI
$40 coo of that amount The trust company, , nus
bing Receiver of both institutions, represented Dom
the etor and creditor sui applied 70 the Court ief I'Le
tons on the Court ordered reference to William Kent ESQ
the efersnce 70 the three lest Presidents Of the Bank
objected that the appointment OF ne receiver s3ole
the Trust COMPANY beng plaintiff IA SUI AGAINST s b4nA,
could receiver Of the Bank The mere enltnt "A
order Special Term which By law nay be made before
,, s,seie lem ir.se,d ~ when nx al Chambers
a' judge sad 5et SSs ao H ion he force Of
made by him a. udze thar b. nsEes * a. the Special Term
entities made AZ the Special Term And suen an
order is 70 be sppealed from be entered Is made AZ me
II he sPP9inaea: Of Receiver ony q, the Papo5s Of
that institution Receiver also Of the Bank Bu M va ~
ifor. II the BsnE and va except The Of
the claim Of the Savings Institution - pecl1y etsaea
.Iring the II trust. when might BE- dfeqt 70 gee
Others % them la IN this csse o. account o. ne
difficulty Obtaining person. % give saea ee
AID 70 manage such AFFAIR." More .xiui psh a 10. Be
found The papers on appeal show no oeeen y 40 an
nor that any others were even named and As there
institution should not be is Receiver, the 'oJe'"
The Trust cemp.ny being lawfully sppoa,et Ks d he
deriving appointment from the Court OF s.,rcons and
Court had right apply te Cour M 10 make the
could proper for nc of cei
~ & man sesorsnsy sppd The Ioar. i T m
- a. can,, ,1.d. the Orter OF ~. -
strncfcn- and the oo,t M Of the sult com
,reea M .e ~ b.i should be SLOWED 70 pI9s - Inc
to ,sn u s,suf the Receiver wonld Dc oouna 70
hne o. nc osnA - could that suit seek for inssrucfons
eh :. sOuss. here noee was pso2s, " q W. ,b
s9ee petscIs n, urobaby could Be thought Of more SUIT
~ g. III. narpose than the late Presidents OF the bank ~
the appellants thnk thai they can n4he 'D' ''e'