From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Looper v. Colonial Coverlet Co.

United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, S.D
Aug 16, 1939
29 F. Supp. 121 (E.D. Tenn. 1939)

Opinion

Nos. 4, 35, 230, 229.

August 16, 1939.

R. Carmack Waterhouse, of Chattanooga, Tenn., for plaintiffs.

Charles A. Noone, of Chattanooga, Tenn., for defendant.


Suits by Glenn Looper, Polly Prentiss, Inc., The Boysell Company, and the Deltox Rug Company against the Colonial Coverlet Company, Inc. On motions to make A.M. Forkosh a party defendant.

Motions granted.


The plaintiffs submit to the Court motions requesting that A.M. Forkosh be made a party defendant. Forkosh appears by counsel and resists the motions.

This presents an unusual situation in that a party not before the Court and who ordinarily would not have notice of the motions, should appear and make a defense. However, I would think that such defense would not be an entry of appearance and the matter would be determined as though no defense were made.

On motions of this kind, I am of the opinion that the allegations in the motions should be taken as true, and this being so it is plain that Forkosh would be a joint tort feasor with the other defendant. The allegations in the motions particularly point out conduct that would, if true, be an infringement on the patents in suit by Forkosh.

This being the situation, he is a proper party defendant to all the suits.

An order will be prepared accordingly and he will be served with process in the usual way.


Summaries of

Looper v. Colonial Coverlet Co.

United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, S.D
Aug 16, 1939
29 F. Supp. 121 (E.D. Tenn. 1939)
Case details for

Looper v. Colonial Coverlet Co.

Case Details

Full title:LOOPER v. COLONIAL COVERLET CO., Inc., and three other cases

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, S.D

Date published: Aug 16, 1939

Citations

29 F. Supp. 121 (E.D. Tenn. 1939)

Citing Cases

United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd.

First, the Court has granted the motion of Johnson and Schering, the proposed new defendants, to intervene…

Timely Products Corp. v. Arron

The defendants are asserting rights against Timely Products for patent infringement and against its officers…