Page:The History of the Standard Oil Company Vol 2.djvu/132

 cause are void." April 25, 1882, another action was commenced by the Vacuum Oil Company against the Buffalo company to obtain an injunction and an accounting for damages upon the ground that the Buffalo company was using an apparatus covered by a patent belonging to the Vacuum Oil Company, but this action also was dismissed March 17, 1885, upon the ground that the letters patent sued upon were "null and void." On February 23, 1883, the Vacuum Oil Company commenced still another action against the Buffalo company asking for an injunction to prevent the Buffalo company from using a label advertising "The Acme Harness Oil made by the Vacuum Process," because the Vacuum Company had long used a somewhat similar label advertising "The Vacuum Harness Oil manufactured by Vacuum Oil Company," but the judge in the case decided that the Vacuum Company had no more right to use labels than the Buffalo company. This decision has since been affirmed by the General Term of the Supreme Court. Still another action was brought against the Buffalo company April 25, 1882, for infringing a patent on a steam process, also a patent upon a fire test. This action resulted in a decree sustaining the fire-test patent, but declaring the steam patent void. The case was then referred to James Breck Perkins, of the Rochester bar, to decide the amount which the Buffalo company had infringed on this patent. Mr. Perkins on a number of different occasions took a large amount of proof there in behalf of the Vacuum Company upon which its counsel claimed that it was entitled to $12,000 damages upon the accounting. The Buffalo company submitted no proof in contradiction, but insisted that the whole proof showed nothing more than a purely technical infringement of the patent, and this view was sustained by Mr. Perkins in his report which awarded six cents damages against the Buffalo company.

The disappearance of Miller, the man on whom the firm