C. S. Burt Co. v. Casey & Hedges Manufacturing Co.

Citations

• 107 La. 231

Syllabus

<p>Syllabus.</p> <p>1. Whilst the plaintiff did not, as did the defendant in one of its letters, use a word which should not have been used, it was equally as aggressive in Ns methods to uphold its business. It chose, without first going to law. to charge the defendant with having infringed its rights under the patent !t holds.</p> <p>2. The defendant sought to retaliate by writing to those with whom it dealt or sought to deal.</p> <p>3. Plaintiff brought suit in the United States Court against the defendant, and ' defendant against the plaintiff. Bach charged the other with fraud aganist the patent laws. The question as to who is the offending party and who has committed the damages will have to await the determination of the issue as to who was the infringer on the other’s patent.</p> <p>4. Bach pleads that the other is the infringer in justification of the letters he has written. That issue can be determined at the same time, or after it will have been determined who has violated the patent laws.</p> <p>5. One who seeks damages growing out of an alleged libel must, in proper issue, show that he himself is not at fault.</p>