Joynt v M'Crum

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeV.-C.
Judgment Date20 January 1899
CourtHigh Court (Ireland)
Docket Number(1898. No. 1158.)
Date20 January 1899

JOYNT
and

M'CRUM.
(1898. No. 1158.)

Chancery Division

Practice — Service out of jurisdiction — Injunction — Anything to be done within jurisdiction — Person out of jurisdiction proper party to action properly brought against other person served within jurisdiction — Order XI., Rule 1 (g) {h), Rule 2.

Badische, & Fabrik v. Henry Johnson, & c.ELR [1896] 1 Ch. 23.

In Burland v. Broxburn oil CompayELR 41 Ch. D. 542.

Kinahan v. KinahanELR 45 Ch. D. 78.

Marshall v. MarshallELR 38 Ch. D. 330.

Tozier v. HawkinsELR 15 Q. B. D. 680.

JOYNT v. WCRUM. V.- C. 1899. (1898. No. 1158.) Jan. 16, 20. Practice—Service out of jurisdiction—Injunction—Anything to be done within jurisdiction—Person out of jurisdiction proper party to action properly brought against other person served within jurisdiction— Order XI., Rule 1 (g) (h), Rule 2. In an action against M., a vendor of cycles within the jurisdiction, and L. & F., cycle manufacturers in England, for an injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing in Ireland the plaintiffs' patent, and for damages, it appeared that L. & F. supplied M. with cycles having the article comÂplained of as an infringement attached. The plaintiffs alleged that these cycles were sold by XL as agent for L. & F., while L. & F. alleged that the cycles were sold by them to II. for resale by him. L. & F. also alleged that the plaintiffs' invention had been anticipated and was not novel. AL had been duly served with the writ within the jurisdiction ; Held, that the case came within both clause (g) and clause (h) of Order XI., Rule 1, and that an order giving leave to issue a concurrent writ, and to serve it on L. & F. out of the jurisdiction, had been rightly made. MOTION to discharge an order dated the 7th December, 1898, giving liberty to issue a concurrent writ and serve the same out of the jurisdiction. The action was commenced on the 28th October, 1898, against William A. 111‘Crum, of 5, Leinster-street, Dublin, and Lea & Francis, Limited, having their registered offices at Coventry in Warwickshire, for an injunction to restrain the defendants and each of them from infringing in Ireland the plaintiffs' patent dated the 27th April, 1897, for damages for such infringement, and for all necessary accounts and inquiries. The writ was served on M'Crum on the 3rd November, 1898. On the 7th December, 1898, the Vice-Chancellor made an order giving liberty to the plaintiffs to issue a concurrent writ and serve the same upon Lea & Francis in England. That order was made upon affidavits by one of the plaintiffs stating, amongst other 1899—VoL. I. 218 THE IRISH REPORTS. [1899. V.-C. matters :—The patent had regard to an invention in reference to 1899. a new or improved method of attaching inflators to cycles ; the JOYNT provisional specification was dated the 26th April, 1897, the cornÂy. DITRum. plete specification the 6th December, 1897 ; application for the patent was made on the 27th April, 1897 ; the complete specifiÂcation was left at the Patent Office on the 8th December, 1897, and same was accepted on the 22nd January, 1898. 11`Crum had been selling, either on his own account or as agent for Lea & Francis, at his shop in Leinster-street, inflator attachments for cycles, which were, as deponent believed, an obvious and palpable imitation of the said invention, and an infringement of the patent ; those inflator attachments purported to be manufactured in Coventry by Lea & Francis, under patent dated the 26th October, 1897 ; the date of the complete specification of the said alleged invention and of the application was the 26th October, 1897, that of the acceptance the 22nd January, 1898. Lea & Francis were an English company of cycle manufacturers ; the plaintiffs' invention being an Irish one, and the plaintiffs expecting a considerable sale in Ireland, they believed that the infringement in Ireland of their rights under their patent was calculated to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • McK v RM
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 12 February 2003
    ...E.H.[2002] 1 I.R. 72 applied. Caudron v. Air Zaire[1985] I.R. 716; Gilligan v. Criminal Assets Bureau[1998] 3 I.R. 185; Joynt v. M'Crum [1899] 1 I.R. 217 considered. 3. That the Act of 1996 applied where the crime was committed abroad. D.P.P. v. Hollmann (Unreported, High Court, O'Higgins J......
  • McKENNA v H (E)
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 18 July 2001
    ...1905 O.11 r1 O'CONNOR V STAR NEWSPAPER CO 30 LRIR 1 AG V DRAPERS 1894 1 IR 185 STUBBS, RE RUSSELL V LE BERT 1896 1 IR 334 JOYNT V M'CRUM 1899 1 IR 217 BURLANDS, RE TRADEMARK BURLAND V BROXBURN OIL CO 1889 IR 542 SHIPSEY V BRITISH & SOUTH AMERICAN STEAM NAVIGATION CO 1936 IR 65 SISKINA V DI......
  • Grehan v Medical Incorporated and Valley Pines Associates
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 13 March 1986
    ...JUDGMENTS ART.2 FERMANAGH CO COUNCIL V FARRENDON 1923 2 IR 180 HANDELSKWEKHERIJ V MINES DE POTASSE D'ALSACE 1976 ECR 1735 JOYNT V M'CRUM 1899 IR 217 KROCH V ROSSELL 1973 1 AER 725 LOCUS OF A TORT 96 ILTR 93 M'CREA V KNIGHT 1896 2 IR 619 M'CULLAGH V THE IRISH FREE STATE 57 ILTR 171 MALICIOU......
  • McK v M
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 12 February 2003

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT