The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-03-24
. BLOW AT A TRUST
JUDGE BAKERS DECISION IN Ma
TI0yAL HARROW COMPANIES SUIT.
It's infringement Bill Rather
Than Countennnce the Creation
of n Combination.

t1-c CA ~ e'0
handed down a decision, yesterday, which
Is of considerable Importance to all man.
ufacturcrs and dealers in agricultural i'm
piements and to persons interested in trusts
and similar combinations. The National
Harrow Company, Of New Jersey, with
principal office in Utica, n. Y, sued Frank
Quick and E. Lindahl, of Chesterton. Ind.
dealers in agricultural implements. for sell
ing spring-tooth harrows manufactured by
the Turner Manufacturing Company, of La
grange, Ind. claiming the implements in
fringed the celebrated Reed spring-tooth
harrow patent, No. 2O1s4s. About eight hun
dred times has this patent been sued upon,
and this is about the twentieth case where
a hearing has been had.
The defendants in this suit raised the
question that the complainant is a combi-
nation or trust, attempting to hold and use
its naked legal title as assignee of the
patent for purposes contrary to public pol
ICY, and that a court of equity ought not
to aid its unlawful purposes BIZ entertain
ing a suit on a patent which had been
assigned to it for such purposes. The
spring-tooth patent litigation has been an
interesting one. The pioneer Carver pat
ent expired in 1886, and had been held by
the Reeds, also the owners of the Reed
patent in this suit. In a decision in 1890,
- III ouSIiCc bIoNu MATERIALLY WEAK
ened the Reed patent. Soon afterwards the
manufacturers of spring-tooth harrows in
the United States. comprising about nine
teen establishments. most of them at Kali
amazoo, Mich, and in central New York,
organized a trust. The number of eStab-
Ilshments subsequently becoming members
of the trust grew to about twenty-six.
The plan of defense in this case was to at
tack the right of such a trust to bring
suit on patents acquired for the purposes
indicated in a court Of equity. The con-
fanfInn r. tho 6nfnnCn ic ilHnrCn 1y Tho
court in the language below:
The complainant is a corporation pur-
of the State of New Jersey. The purpose
or its organization as shown by the proofs
Is to become the assignee of all the pat
ents held by the different corporations and
business firms in the United States which
are engaged in the manufacture and sale
of 'spring-tooth' harrows; to grant licenses
to such corporations and firms to use the
patents so assigned upon the payment by
them of a royalty of one dollar for each
charge of all litigation of it's licensees in
relation to such patents and to prosecute
signed; to pay all costs and expenses of
such litigation, and to fix and regulate the
price, at which such harrows shall be
sold by it's licensees. The complainant cor
p~oration is not organized for the manu-
facture and sale of harrows under the pat
ents assigned to it, nor has it ever en-
gagged IN their manufacture and sale. A
majority of all the corporations and firms
engaged In the manufacture and sale OF
have assigned the patents owned by them,
respectively, to the complainant, and have
received from it licenses to manufacture
and sell harrows under the patents sever
ally assigned by them to it. The patent
complainant by D. c.. and H. c. Reed &c
Co., who have received an exclusive license
from the complainant to manufacture and
sell harrows under that patent, practically
in all the territory covered by it. So far
as / can perceive the complainant Is or
ganized to receive assignments of the legal
fitIa Of harrow npfentS. to grant back
licenses to their assignors to use and enjoy
the same, to collect from each member of
the combination or trust one dollar as a
license fee for each harrow manufactured
and sold, to regulate and control the price
bers of the combination. and to prosecute
and defend all suits involving the alleged
infringement of such assigned patents.
ut seems to me that such a combination
is illegel and that its purposes are viola
tive of sound public policy. The common
law forbids the organization of such COM
binations composed of numerous corpora
tons and firms. They are dangerous to the
peace and good order of society; and they
powers destructive of the right of free
competition in the markets of the country
imperil the free and pure administration of
justice. Strait VS., National Harrow Com
PanG. 4 y Mich !. i Sap, Emory moi Ra Is. The oh III;
Candle Company. AZ Ohio st. go; The State
VS.; the Nebraska ETC. Co. Co. q Neh ft; 700; az
patent IN question is valid. and that it has
a lawful right to it's protection from inva-
sion by a stranger, regardless Of the objects
and purposes of the combination which it
represents. On the other hand the defend
ants contend that to give lis title protec-
ton would be to give aid to the unlawful
purposes of the combination. In suits at
law it is doubtless true, as a general propo-
mitted to dispute the legal title of one in
possession of money or property by showing
that the title thereto was unlawfully ac-
quired. or that the owner intends to apply
it TO an unlawful use. / have strong doubts
whether this rule ought to apply to a suit
in equity, where nothing but clean hands
and a good conscience will move the court
to- act. The combination represented by the
complainant is not illegal in any other sense
except that the law will not lend its aid
to the accomplishment of its purposes. The
common law does not prohibit the making
Of such combinations pnsa 1t merely declines
their validity by refusing to make any de-
cree or order which will in any way give
aid to the purposes of such combinations.
1t seems to me that the court cannot sus-
tain the present bill without giving aid
to the unlawful combination or trust rep
resented by the complainant. The question
is not free from doubt; but in case of doubt
| feel it my duty to resolve it in such a
the court to the creation of combinations
trusts or m~onopolies. They have already
grown to alarming proportions. and courts.
to discountenance and repress Them
Upon this ground, and also upon the
ity and was not i~nfringed by the defendants.
the bill was dismissed. This decision strikes
at the life of the trust and undermines the
value of its property, consisting, as it is
understood, almost wholly of about eighty
five harrow patents. 1t applies also to all
trusts based on a similar business scheme.
The same company has begun a large num-
Der of suits on IT'S patents this winter, several
being against agricultural dealers at Craw-
louisville. Winchester and elsewhere in In
diana. The counsel for the complainant
were N. H. Stewart and Messrs. Howard
& Roos, of Kalamazoo, Mich, and for the
Iafondontc u Fl Lockwood of th;s citv