Court Opinion

ID: 8842242
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-26 16:45:42.376906+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:05:14.413857
License: Public Domain

Wallace, J.
I have held the motion for an interlocutory injunction in this cause undecided for several months, upon the supposition that the complainant proposed to apply for leave to submit supplemental depositions, or to dismiss his motion. In my judgment the right of the complainant to treat the defendants as infringers hinges upon the question of fact whether Domeier paid or sent his check for the benzo-purpurine bought by him for the defendants of the London agent of the Berlin company before ho received the invoice which gave notice that the patented article was sold on condition that it was not to be used or sold in the United States. I am unable to determine this question upon the depositions which have been submitted. The motion ought to be disposed of; and, as the complainant has not applied to dismiss it or reopen it for further depositions, and as the case made does not satisfy me that the goods were not paid for or a check given for them before Domeier received the invoice, the motion is denied.