Case Name: A. SMITH & SONS CARPET CO. v. SKINNER
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-12-27
Citations: 36 N.Y.S. 1000
Docket Number: 
Parties: A. SMITH & SONS CARPET CO. v. SKINNER.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 36
Pages: 1000–1001

Head Matter:
A. SMITH & SONS CARPET CO. v. SKINNER.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
December 27, 1895.)
1. Injunction Pendente Lite—When Proper.
In an action to compel defendant to assign to plaintiffs a certain patent, the moving affidavit showed the patent to belong, in equity, to plaintiffs, while defendant held the title, and that defendant refused to assign the patent to plaintiffs. Held, that an injunction pendente lite against defend-, ant’s transferring the patent to third persons was proper.
3. Evidence—Judicial Notice.
The court will take judicial notice of the business of the patent office, and that patent No. 543,(559 is an issue of later date than No. 186,374.
Appeal from special term.
Action by A. Smith & Sons Carpet Company against one Skinner to compel defendant to assign to plaintiffs a certain patent. From an order enjoining defendant, pendente lite, from transferring the patent to third persons, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before BROWN, P. J., and DYKMAN and PRATT, JJ.
R. E. & A. J. Prime, for appellant.
John F. Braman, for respondents.

Opinion:
PRATT, J.
The special term places this case on the proper ground. The patent, No. 543,659, is shown by moving affidavits to belong, in equity, to plaintiffs, while the paper title is held by defendant. He refuses to assign, and upon these facts an injunction, pendente lite, against his transferring the patent to strangers is a matter of course. Strict proof that defendant threatens to sell is not required. From the face that defendant unjustly refuses to assign to plaintiffs, the court may well infer an intent to use the patent unlawfully.
It is objected that it is not specifically shown when the discovery covered by patent No. 543,659 was made, and, therefore, it may have been made before 1874, when the contract was executed upon which plaintiffs' rights depend. It is shown to be for an improvement on patent No. 186,374, issued in 1877. The court will take judicial notice of the course of business in the patent office, and that No. 543,659 is an issue of later date than No. 186,374. We think the appeal without merit.
Order appealed from affirmed, with costs. All concur.