Boston Diatite Co. v. Florence Manufacturing Co.
Cases that cite this one
52 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Krebiozen Research Foundation v. Beacon Press, Inc. (Mass. 1956)
- Truax v. Corrigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1921)
- Allegretti Chocolate Cream Co. v. Rubel (Ill. App. Ct. 1899)
- General Electric Co. v. Gem Vacuum Stores (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1955)
- Kwass v. Kersey (W. Va. 1954)
- Voltube Corp. v. B. & C. INSULATION PRODUCTS (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1951)
- Montgomery Ward & Co. v. United Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Employees of America (Ill. 1948)
- Kenyon v. City of Chicopee (Mass. 1946)
- J. C. Pitman & Sons, Inc. v. Pitman (Court of Chancery of Delaware 1946)
- Stadium Mfg. Co. v. Plymouth Pajama Corporation (District Court, D. Massachusetts 1937)
- Menard v. Houle (Mass. 1937)
- Russo v. Thompson (Mass. 1936)
- A. Hollander Son v. Jos. Hollander (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1935)
- Lietzman v. Radio Broadcasting Station W. C. F. L. (Ill. App. Ct. 1935)
- Artloom Corp. v. National Better Business Bureau, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1931)
- Art Metal Works, Inc. v. Auto Match Corp. (District Court, S.D. New York 1930)
- Celotex Co. v. Insulite Co. (D. Minn. 1930)
- Lawrence Trust Co. v. Sun-American Publishing Co. (Mass. 1923)
- Hughes v. West Publishing Co. (Ill. App. Ct. 1922)
- Morgan v. Neely (Tex. App. 1921)
- Choate v. Logan (Mass. 1921)
- Aronson v. Orlov (Mass. 1917)
- Finnish Temperance Society Sovittaja v. Raivaaja Publishing Co. (Mass. 1914)
- American Malting Co. v. Keitel (2d Cir. 1913)
- Virtue v. Creamery Package Mfg. Co. (8th Cir. 1910)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The jurisdiction of a Court of Chancery does not extend to cases of libel or slander, or of false representations as to the character or quality of the plaintiff’s property, or as to his title thereto, which involve no breach of trust or of contract. Huggonson's case, 2 Atk. 469, 488. Gee v. Pritchard, 2 Swanst. 402, 413. Seeley v. Fisher, 11 Sim. 581, 583. Fleming v. Newton, 1 H. L. Cas. 363, 371, 376. Emperor of Austria v. Day, 3 De G., F. & J. 217, 238-241. Mulkern v. Ward, L. R. 13 Eq. 619. The opinions of Vice-Chancellor Malins in Springhead Spinning Co. v. Riley, L. R. 6 Eq. 551, in Dixon v. Holden, L. R. 7 Eq. 488, and in Rollins v. Hinks, L. R. 13 Eq. 355, appear to us to be so inconsistent with these authorities and with well settled principles, that it would be superfluous to consider whether, upon the facts before him, his decisions can be supported.
The jurisdiction to restrain the use of a name or a trade-mark, or the publication of letters, rests upon the ground of the plaintiff’s property in his name, trade-mark or letters, and of the defendant’s unlawful use thereof. Routh v. Webster, 10 Beav. 561. Leather Cloth Co. v. American Leather Cloth Co. 4 De G., J. & S. 137, and 11 H. L. Cas. 523. Maxwell v. Hogg, L. R. 2 Ch. 307, 310, 313. Gee v. Pritchard, 2 Swanst. 402.
The present bill alleges no trust or contract between the parties, and no use by the defendants of the plaintiff’s name; but only that the defendants made false and fraudulent representations, oral and written, that the articles manufactured by the plaintiff were infringements of letters patent of the defendant corporation, and that the plaintiff had been sued by the defendant corporation therefor; and that the defendants further threatened uivers persons with suits for selling the plaintiff’s goods, upon the false and fraudulent pretence that they infringed upon the patent
Demurrer sustained and Mil dismissed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.