PHILADELPHIA BRIEF CASE CO., A PARTNERSHIP COMPRISING WILLIAM FINKELSTEIN, JOSEPH FINKELSTEIN, LEONARD KOLKER (PLAINTIFFS), APPELLANTS, EDWARD ROCKMAN, JEROME W. EPTON, MAX E. LEVIN, ABE ROMOLT, AND NATIONAL LEATHER HANDLE CO., OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS (UNWILLING PLAINTIFFS)
v.
SPECIALTY LEATHER PRODUCTS CO., INC., (DEFENDANT), APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed an order, with a special concurrence arguing that plaintiffs, who were the majority of landowners and residents in the affected community, were proper parties to sue regarding the closure of a public road, as they demonstrated special injury.
The court affirmed the order appealed from, but a concurring judge disagreed with the holding that the plaintiffs were not proper parties to bring the suit, stating they had shown the required special injury.
Eighty-one plaintiffs, constituting the majority of landowners and residents in the Mulat, Florida area, sued to prevent the closure of a public road …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a patent infringement suit from a judgment entered by the District Court for the District of New Jersey in favor of the defendant. The plaintiffs were licensees of the patent and they had joined the owners of the patent as unwilling plaintiffs in the suit. Having found from the uncontradicted evidence that the plaintiffs’ real purpose in bringing the suit was not to support and enforce the patent but rather to secure its being declared void, the district court at the instance of the defendant struck the unwilling plaintiffs as parties, held that the plaintiffs were without authority to sue, and entered the judgment appealed from. The judgment will be affirmed for the reasons stated in the opinion filed by Judge Hartshorne in the district court, 145 F.Supp. 425, with which we are in full accord and to which we need add nothing.
The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.