The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-02-19
THE GREAT INDIA RUBBER CONTROVERSY,
>O-~~o->>>~--o>~o~--~~~01~~
The Decision Of Judge IngerSOII Re-
fusing an Injunction.
Argument Of the Hon. B. R. Curtis On Motion
for Injuncti0ns.
-o>~~~-~>~o>~--o->~-No%.~-
TWO SIDES OF 4 GREET QUESTION,
&C., &C., &e.

or Vendors or Elastic woven India RubIser
Goods, Sc.
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT
OF NEW YORK.
Charles Goodyear Horace r. Dan and Ateronde,.
Hoy Us. Cary Ho,card d Sanger.
The present application for preliminary injunc-
ton is IN the names of Charles Goodyear Horace
II. Day and Alexander Hay. Goodyear has no in
terest in common with the other complainants. He
is but nominal party. The real parties in interest
are Day and Hay. The complainants seek to en-
join the defendants from making, using or vending
any shirred or corrugated, or elastic India rubber
goods, containing India rubber vucanized by being
subjected to the action of high degree of artificial
heat in connection with or in the presence of sui
phur in some FORM or containing any of the inven-
tons or improvements secured by what is cOp1mOn-
ly called Goodyears VucaniZng Patent first issued
on the 18th day of June, IS44 afterwards reissued
on the 18th day of December, ls49 and subsequent
~ extended for seven years from the 18th day of
June, 1888, the exclusive right to make, use and
vend which goods the said complainants claim was
vested in them by grants and licenses from Good
year, the patentee.
The first of the original deeds, containing the
grants OF right, were executed by Goodyear and
Day, on the 29th day of October, A. ID. 1876; ano-
ther, called 'articies additional or suppleme ll'
TO those contained in the first mentioned deed was
executed on the 9th day Of November of the same
year; another, a memorandum of agreement"
auxiliary to the last mentioned deeds, was executed
on the same 5th day of November; another was
executed on the 5th day of December of the same
year, and another on the oath day of May, A. D.
1855
The first question to which our attention il di-
rected is, what did the parties to these several
deeds mean and understand by the terms used in
the grants of right in the deeds referred to- viz:
"shirred or corrugated goods?" The rights of the
complanants under these deeds or either Of them.
depend upon the determination. of this question.
The goods which the defendant sells are elastic
woven rubber goods, threads of vulcanized India
rubber, prepared according to Goodyear's patent
of fbp nf Inn hao "a,
for seven years from June Is, 1885, forming a part
OF the warps. Selling or making such elastic
woven goods without license is an Infringement of
the last mentioned patent. And if such elastic
woven goods were intended by the parties to the
deeds, made in lS46, to be included in the terms
"shirred or corrugated goods as used in thu,
grants OF right, in either Of those deeds, then It
follows that what the defendant is doing is in vio-
lation Of the rights of the compainants Day and
Hay.
Where certain terms are used in grant which
have well known general meaning then. in the
Interpretation of such grant such well known gene
raj meaning must be given to the terms used unless
1t appears that some other or different meaning was
intended by them. The parties differ as to what
was the well known general meaning of the terms
shirred corrugated goods as used in the grant
and numerous afidayts have been introduced tn
prove what their well known general meaning was
when the deeds of 1916 were executed.
1t will not be necessary. however to pay any par
tlcular attention to these affdavts, if it appear
clearly from the deeds themselves what the mean
ing was which the parties to the deeds intended
should he applied to these terms. The defendant
insists that this does appear clearly from the Deeds
and that the meaning Of the terms shrred or cor
rugated goods" used in the grant, was only goods
described in, and patented BY what .s called the
shrred goods patent of Goodyear, issued March 8.
1S44.
To just determination of the question now nm
der consideration it is necessary to notice particu
larly the several patents of GOODYEAR which are
referred to in the deed executed by him and Day,
October 29 ls46. On the 30th of October, 1s40 q
patent had been obtained by Dupont & HYATT, for a
new and useful improvement in the manufac-
ture of gaiter boots, by the Introduction of
gum elastic cores On the 9TH of Novem-
Der, ls4s, patent was obtained by Richard
Soils, for new and useful Improvement of elastic
cloth-it was called elastic cloth--not "shirred
or corrugated" cloth. On the 24th day of Fe-
bruary, 1889, patent was obtained by GOODYEAR
for improvements IN the mode of preparing caout-
choue or India rubber, for the manufacture of va
rious articles. On the 9th of March, ls44 patent
was obtained by him for new and useful manufac-
ture Of good which he, in his patent denominated
"shirred or corrugated India rubber goods" The
goods so manufactured and denomnated were elas-
tic. The elastic goods which Goodyear manufac-
tered according to his patent and to which he thus
gave the name Of corrugated or shirred India rub
Der goods" by which name they have ever since
been genrally known, were formed 'by the stretch
ing OF strips or threads of India rubber to such ex
ent as may be desired, and covering the strips or
threads on opposite sides with lamin@ of cloth
nae were united to each other and to the strips or
threads by means Of India rubber cement the same
being effected so as to produce manufactured arti-
cles substantially as in the specification is set FORTH
which would by the contraction of the stripes or
threads of India rubber become corrugated so as
form distinct paits between them and present q
corded appearance, and will also possess degree
of elasticity limited by the non-elastic material
which constituted one or both of the lamina." The
elastic goods manufactured according to the Soils
patent were, in that patent, called and known as
elastic cloth, and not "shirred or corrugated
India rubber goods And the only elastic goods
manufacture, wefe the particular kind of elastic
goods made according to this patent of March O.
ls44, and so called by him corrugated or shirrcd
India rubber goods" No one had, however,
right to use without his consent, in the manufac-
ture of other kinds of elastic India rubber goods.
the particular kind or preparation of India rubber
which had been or should be patented to him. So
far as Goodyear was concerned every one had Q
right to manufacture all kinds of India rubber elas-
tic goods, except such as were described in hia
patent Of March 3, 1s44, provided they did not use
any particular preparation of India rubber patented
TO him.
On the same 9th of March. 1874. a patent vas
granted to Goodyear for new and useful manner
Of constructing machine for manufacturing the
corrugated or shirred India rubber goods mem
toned and described in the before mentioned
patent In this specification he states that he had,
in the before mentioned specification described the
nature of what he denoninated corrugated or
SHRED India rubber goods"
That name he had given to the particular kind Of
elastic goods manufactured according to that pa-
tent And on the 18th day of June, 1874, patent
was granted TO him for new and useful improve
ments in the manner of preparing fabrics of caout-
chouc or India rubber
On the 18th of August, 1855, Goodyear gave to
Hutchinson Runnyon, and also to Ford h Co., 20
free license TO manufacture, and yend shirred or
corrugated goods of every description" And in
the month OF September in the same year, he gavo
to ODderdonk u Letson "a concurrent right. to-
gether with, and in connection with or separate
from, Hutchinson n Runnyon and Ford h Co., aud
the said Charles Goodyear and his associates fre0
license to manufacture, use and vend shirred or
corrugated goods of every description, I'm 80 far a.
the said Charles Goodyear may have any rights or
privileges"
The agreement of the 10th day of October, 1916,
between Goodyear and Day, was executed by both
parties, under their hands and seals After recit-
ing that Goodyear owned and controlled all the
rights and privileges granted to him, by the four
before mentioned patents in his favor so far az
such rights and privileges relate TO the manufactur