Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-09-13
AN INJUNCTION REFUSED
DAVIS AND OTHERS AGAINST THE
M. A. WINTER COMPANY.
Justice BradIey's ActiOn-Use of
GraphOphOne In Political CAM
paign-The Issue Presented.

In the case of Augustus Davis. 5r., Will
liam E. Ryan and Matthew III. Ramage
against the NJ. A. Winter Company, having
reference to the use Of the graphophone TO
reproduce speeches for campaign purposes.
Justice Bradley today denied the applica-
ton Of the complainants for mandatory
injunction against the defendant.
In their bill the compliments set forth
that. the Winter Company having a conces-
sion from the Columbia Photograph Com
pany of New York to make master records,
having the same duplicated and selling the
same for campaign purposes. the conf
plainants entered into contract With the
Winter Company. whereby 1t granted the
right to them to secure such master records
and have the same duplicated for campaign
purposes and to sell the same. and the right
to sell, under certain restrictions. graphic
phones, their parts, accessories and sup
plies.
The complainants agreed with the Winter
Company to secure at least ten master rec
ords from democratic politicians. and or
dered to be manufactured at least 80 dupn-
cate master records to be purchased and
paid for by the plaintiffs at the rate OF II
for each duplicate. and to order and have
manufactured by the defendant as many
master records as they felt they could use
to their profit. AS an earnest of their In
tegrity and good faith they paid to the de-
PENDANT $1,000. to be credited upon the &C
count Of the payment for the $500 dupii-
Gates.
Further Agreement.
They further agreed, 1t is alleged. to or
der and procure all graphOphones. phono-
graphs parts, accessories and supplies from
the company and pay cash for all goods
as ordered. and that the sales Of said goods
so purchased should be either for cash In
advance or &c. o. D." that where goods
ordered from the Winter company were
not paid for in advance they were to be
shipped to the purchaser by the company
&C o. D." and the money paid to be re-
turned to the defendant company and ap-
piled by it to the payment Of any sum due
or owing 1t under the contract, and the
balance to Richard Young In payment or
certain sums advanced by him to the COM
plainants; that under the terms OF the
contract the defendant company agreed to
furnish an expert record taker ana outnt
to proceed to Indianapolis and secure mas
ter records. the expenses to be betrayed by
the complainants.
The compliments allege that they have
compiled with the terms Of their contract,
having paid the $1,000 and procured the
master records. but. they charge the de-
PENDANT company declines to fill orders for
duplicates of the master records turned
over to them and has announced that IL
existing, and that by the action Of the de-
PENDANT the complainants have suffered ir-
reparable injury and may be subjected to
legal liability to many parties.
Denies the Allegations.
The Winter Company denied the allega-
lions OF the compliments, contending that
the latter had failed to comply with the
terms Of the contract; that the Winter
Company manufactured 1.25O duplicate rec
ords ordered by the compliments, and Au-
gust II rendered them, but the complain
ants refused to accept them: that August
3 50 duplicates were rendered the COM
plainants and refused, and that since that
time a number of other records were like
wise rendered and refused. The expense Of
$10S.0 incurred by the expert record taker,
and other sums due the defendant, had not
been paid, it Is also contended, and that
August 80 the compliments were notified
that the defendant had rescinded the con-
tract.
The court, finding that the complainants
have not compiled with the terms of the
contract, held they were not in q position
to seek the relief prayed for in their bill.
it being a maxim of the law that he who
seeks equity must do equity; and though
the complainant may suffer some damage
the case made out did not entitle them
to the extraordinary relief of preliminary
mandatory Injunction. there being no extra
ordinary emergency that would Justify its
issuance, the complainants remedy at law
for any damages they might suffer being
clear. complete and adequate.