Booth v. Stutz Motor Car Co.
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- Seismograph Service Corp. v. Offshore Raydist, Inc. (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 1955)
- Bohlman v. American Paper Goods Co. (District Court, D. New Jersey 1943)
- Booth v. Stutz Motor Car Co. of America, Inc. (7th Cir. 1932)
- Allen-Qualley Co. v. Shellmar Products Co. (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1929)
- Eaton Mfg. Co. v. Sibley (District Court, E.D. Michigan 1945)
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 District Court, on motion of defendants (appellees), dismissed, without opinion, plaintiff’s (appellant’s) bill for want of equity.
The averments of the bill show that plaintiff was the owner of a new and useful device, upon the discovery and perfection of which he had spent years of time and much money; that defendants, by fraudulently pretending and representing that they desired to make careful investigation of the device with the idea of buying or otherwise obtaining, the right to use it, and under the promise that they would keep all disclosures strictly secret and would not copy his blueprints or drawings, induced plaintiff to supply them with every detail of his invention, including all blueprints, drawings, etc.; that, after so receiving and keeping those things for a considerable time, defendants told plaintiff they did not care to negotiate further, but that, nevertheless, they did adopt, use, and embody in the Stutz automobile, of which the defendant corporation was the maker and the other defendants were officers and stockholders, plaintiff’s invention, using, in so doing, the detailed information gained from the plans, drawings, and blueprints furnished them by plaintiff. If the defendants did the things charged, they were guilty of a breach of their undertaking, and actually appropriated to their use the product of plaintiff’s labors and expenditures of money. We are of opinion that the complaint shows grounds for equitable relief.
It appears that there is a suit pending on the patent granted plaintiff upon the device in question, for which the court compelled the bringing of a separate suit. It would seem that, under equity rule 26, plaintiff had the right to join his two causes of action, and, in the interest of economy of time and effort, it appears desirable that in this ease that should be done.
The order of dismissal is reversed, and the cause remanded to the District Court, to proceed in harmony with this opinion.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.