Supreme Court of the United States, 1928

L. P. Larson, Jr., Co. v. Wm. Wrigley, Jr., Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided May 14, 1928 · Holmes

277 U.S. 97; 48 S. Ct. 449; 72 L. Ed. 800; 1928 U.S. LEXIS 678 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Messrs. Charles A. Aldrich and George I. Haight, with whom Messrs. Chester D. Kern, Ralph L. Peck, and Charles R. Aldrich were on the brief, for petitioner., The remedy of the'Wrigley Company for the recovery of taxes paid by it is provided by statute and this remedy is exclusive., Mr. Isaac H. Mayer, with whom Mr. Wallace R. Lane was ón the brief, for respondent.,

Cases that cite this one

50 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Weaver v. Burger King Corp. (In re Weaver) (United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Montana 1998)
Sammons v. Colonial Press, Inc. (1st Cir. 1942)
Carter Products, Inc. v. Colgate-Palmolive Company (District Court, D. Maryland 1963)
John B. Stetson Co. v. Stephen L. Stetson Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1944)
Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 2007)
Locklin v. Day-Glo Color Corporation (7th Cir. 1970)
Locklin v. Day-Glo Color Corp. (7th Cir. 1970)
Stromberg Motor Devices Co. v. Zenith-Detroit Corp. (2d Cir. 1934)
Schnadig Corporation v. Gaines Manufacturing Company, Inc. (6th Cir. 1980)
Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc. (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2015)
Fendi Adele S.R.L. v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp. (District Court, S.D. New York 2009)
In Design v. K-Mart Apparel Corp. (2d Cir. 1994)
In Design v. K-Mart Apparel Corp. (2d Cir. 1994)
Jet Spray Cooler, Inc. v. Crampton (Mass. 1979)
Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1949)
Playnation Play Sys., Inc. v. Velex Corp. (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia 2017)
Mary Kay, Inc. v. Weber (District Court, N.D. Texas 2009)
Jerry's Famous Deli, Inc. v. Papanicolaou (9th Cir. 2007)
New Line Cinema Corp. v. Russ Berrie & Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 2001)
Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton (9th Cir. 2000)
Weiss v. Weiss (District Court, S.D. New York 1997)
Monsanto Chemical Company v. Perfect Fit Products Manufacturing Co. (2d Cir. 1965)
Monsanto Chemical Co. v. Perfect Fit Products Manufacturing Co. (2d Cir. 1965)
Wolfe v. National Lead Company (9th Cir. 1959)
Cathedral Estates, Inc. v. The Taft Realty Corporation (2d Cir. 1957)

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

Mr. Justice Nolmes

delivered the opinion of the Court.-.

. ^ There has been long litigation between the parties in this suit, the last stage of which appears in 20 F. (2d) 830. The Wrigley Company was ordered to account for net profits on sales of its ‘ Doublemint ’ gum in a package dress that infringed the Larson Company’s ‘ Wintermint ’ gum package. During the accounting, questions arose that were decided by the Circuit Court of Appeals. To review one of these questions a writ of certiorari was granted by this Court. That question is whether, as held below with modifications that need not be mentioned, the Wrigley Company should be allowed to deduct the federal income and excess profits taxes from the profits with which it is to be charged.

No doubt there are cases in which such a deduction would be proper. But the question cannot be answered by the merely formal reply that if the Larson Company chooses to make the Wrigley Company its agent or trustee ex maleficio and to demand the profits made by the agent it must take the burden with the benefit and can have no-more than the agent made in fact. To call'the infringer an agent or.trustee is not to state a fact but merely to indicate a mode of approach and an imperfect analogy by which the wrongdoer will be made to hand over the pro *100 ceeds of his wrong. Circumstances will affect the conclusion, including in them the knowledge and the conduct of the party charged. It would be unjust to charge an infringer with the gross amount of his sales without allowing him for the materials and labor that were necessary to produce the things sold, but it does not follow that he should be allowed what he paid for the chance to do what he knew that he had no right to do. That is the position of the Wrigley Company as we understand the findings in the successive stages of this suit. 253 Fed. Rep. 914, 916. 275 Fed. Rep. 535, 537, 538. 5 F. (2d) 731, 739. 20 F. (2d) 830, 831. Even if the only relief that the Wrigley Company can get is a deduction from gross income when the amount of its liability’ is finally determined, the Larson Company will have to pay a tax on the Wrigley profits when it receives them, and in a case of what has been found to have been one of conscious and deliberate wrongdoing, we think it just that'the further deduction should not be allowed.

Decree as to allowance of federal taxes reversed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.