
    CARTER-CRUME CO. et al. v. WATSON et al.
    (Circuit Court, N. D. Now Vork.
    June 26, 1895.)
    No. 6,336.
    t. Prulijitnary Ix.jitxctiox tx Patent Suits— Kstoppeh.
    In an infringement, suit against small dealers wlio pnirliased tlio alleged infringing goods from a corporation, it appeared Unit file patentee of tlie Xiatent sued on was a member of that corporation, and that the goods sold by lha corporation woio made under a subsequent patent, which was alleged to cover the device of complainant’s iiatent, with an added feature. Hol'd, that if anj- estoppel arose from these facts, against defendants, it was not so clear as to justify the court in issuing a preliminary injunction on that ground alone.
    2. Same—Check Books.
    A preliminary injunction against alleged infringement of the Rodden patent, No. 503,91 1, for a counter cheek book denied.
    This was a suit by the Carter-Grume Company and others against George F. Watson and others for infringement, of a patent for a counter check hook. Complainants moved for a preliminary injunction.
    C. H. Duell, for complainants.
    George B. Sel den, for defendants.
   COXE, District Judge.

The patent upon which this action is based, No. 503,914, is not two years old. It has never been adju-. dicaled and there is no public acquiescence, infringement is disputed. The defendants are small dealers who purchased the hooks in controversy from the American Counter Quick Book Company, a corporation organized under the laws of West Virginia. The principal reliance of the complainants is an alleged estoppel based upon the fact that William TT. Hodden, the patentee of complainants’ patent, is a director in the West Virginia Company, and that the books sold to defendants are said to be made under a subsequent patent to Hodden which show’s the device of the complainants’ patent with an added feature. In oilier words, the contention is that because Hodden cannot dispute the validity of the patent owned by the complainants, the West Virginia Company and the defendants, who purchased from that company, are also estopped. No authority is cited which carries the doctrine of estoppel quite to this extent. It is enough, however, to say that the estoppel relied on is not so absolutely clear as to justify the court in malting it the sole support of a preliminary injunction. Motion denied.  