HOME INS. CO· .,. NOBLES.
HOME INS. CO. OF NEW YORK v. NOBLES et aI.
(Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania. No.4.
September 14, 1894.)
FEDERAL COURTS-FAILURE TO AVER AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY.
A bill for an injunction restraining defendants from further issuing a certain circular alleged to be detrimental to complainant's business, and from in any way interfering with that business by threats, etc., which does not contain any statement of the amount of damages sustained or apprehended, 01" of the value of the matter in controversy, or of the object sought to be obtained, is not sufficient to give the court jurisdiction. A bill, defective for want of an averment of the amount in controversy, will not be dismissed where it does not affirmatively appear that the court is without jurisdiction, but complainant will be given leave to move to amend.
2. SAME-LEAVE TO AMEND.
This was a motion for a preliminary injunction. The bill was filed by the Home Insurance Company of New York against Milton A. Nobles, Edward F. McMenemin, Phineas Tolman, and Gustav E. Kress for an injunction restraining them from further issuing a certain circular, and from in any way interfering with complainant's business by threatening complainant's policy holders, or those intending to become such, with prosecution for an infringement of alleged copyrights, or fr()m in any way interfering with complainant's business, either by threats or false representations, whether verbal or written, or by any other means whatsoever. The circular in question was issued by defendant N abIes as district manager of the Agricultural Insurance Company, and reads as follows:
"All persons insured under the weekly or industrial fire insurance plan are hereby notified that this plan, and all books and papers used therein, are copyrighted by the undersigned. The authority by me heretofore granted to the Home Insurance Company of New York has been annulled, and the said company has been notified to cease using said plan. The Agricultural Insurance Company of New York has been licensed to issue policies under said plan of weekly or industrial fire insurance, and alone has the right to issue such policies. On presenting your present policy in the Home Insurance Company, together with your book, at the office of the Agricultural Insurance Company, 216 South Fourth street, Philadelphia, or to any agent of the Agricultural Insurance Company bearing certificate of authority signed by me, a new book and policy will be issued to you, and the liability assumed by the Agricultural Insurance Company, without cost or loss to you. The agents of the Agricultural Insurance Company bearing certificate of authority signed by me are the only persons authorized to make collections. All persons representing other companies, as well as policy holders, are liable to involve themselves in lawsuits instituted to protect the copyrights, by attempting to use said plan."
G. Heide Norris and Francis T. Chambers, for plaintiff. Harrity & Beck, Hector T. Fenton, and F. Pierce Buckley, for defendants.
DALLAS, Circuit Judge. The only specific prayer of this bill is for an injunction restraining the defendants from further issuing a certain circular which is alleged to be detrimental to the comv.63F.no.5-41
plainant's business, and from in any way interfering with that business by threats, It is alleged that this circular 'and the action of,"have already caused of the great daJhage to it [the complainant], which will increase daily;" but there is no statement of the amount of damages sustained or nqrof the value 9(tp.e in. cqntroversy,-of the object sought to be attained,which is the preventlOn.of "any further issuing ofthecil'cular,"etc.Tbe bill is therefore defective for want of are1,'1rient that in contro'Versy is sufficient, under tlieact to. Consequently, thepresentiJDDtion fQraprelbninary injunction cannot be entertained; but, as it does not affirmatively appear that the court is witp.out juris.diction of the cause, the bill will not now be dismissed,. and hll-s N 'move as it may advised in view of, notice to defendant's counsel. The attention of counsel is directed to Railroad Co. v; Ward, 2 Black, v. Fed.. 83;1:; Whitman v. Hubbell, 30 Fed. 485; 81; l'. S. 112; Gorman v. Havird, 141 U. S. 206;1'1:Sup. Ct and: Ra1ney v. Herbert, 3 U. S. App. 592, 5 C. C. A.l$3/1$5 Fed,. 443; . Theni6tion for preliminary injunction is dismissed Wfthout prejudiCe. .
HOME INS; CO. v.NOBLES et at. '(Circt1lt Court, E. D. Pennsylvania. September 27, 1894.) No.4.
1. PRELIMINARVINJUNCTION+-DENIAL .WHERE RIGHT DOUBTFUL. ..........·. ,"
Aprelimlnary injunction will be denled where, upon conflicting aftldavits, an(lunder'the law, complalnant's right to the relief asked is doubtWHERE Wlt0NG VOLUNTARII,y DISCONTINUED.
A preUi:nblli.R': injunction. be granted to restrain the further issue of a. circular alleged' to 'l)e Q.etrimental to complainant's business, a statement tha.t tbe llolicy holders of complainant company areUable to involvethettlselves in suits instituted to protect alleged there referred to, it appears 1?y oath of defendant that the ot such circulars was discontinued before suit brought, on being advbred that the p\>licy holders could not be held liable for tnfringement. .. .
In Equity. On motion fQr preliminary injunction. The facts appear in the preceding case;' 63 ;Fed. 641. G. and FraMisT.Chambers, for plaintiff. Harrity & Beck, HectorT, Fenton, and F. Pierce Buckley, for . defendants. DALLAS,HCireult JUdge.c . When application for 'a preliminary injunction was first made, I declined to entertain it because the bill was, in my opinion, defective for want of a necessary jurisdicThat defect has since been cured by an amendtional·· ment, flIed with notice and without objection,anq.thereupon the motion fqr,preHminary injunction has "been I have care-