Foster v. Carlin

5 Citing cases

  1. Donald F. Duncan, Inc. v. Royal Tops Mfg. Co.

    343 F.2d 655 (7th Cir. 1965)   Cited 40 times
    Relying on an expert linguist's testimony that supported holding that "yo-yo" was a generic term

    The license agreement relied on is, therefore, invalid. General Finance Corp. et al. v. Keystone Credit Corp. et al., 50 F.2d 872, 878 (4th Cir.); Almon Heath v. A.B. Dick Co., 253 F.2d 30, 35 (7th Cir.); Foster v. Carlin, 218 F.2d 795, 801 (4th Cir.). Furthermore, plaintiff, on June 28, 1961, gave Royal formal notice of cancellation of the license agreement, and it has been held that an estoppel by a licensee to deny the validity of licensor's trademark expires with the license.

  2. Mardel Sec., Inc. v. Alexandria Gazette Corp.

    320 F.2d 890 (4th Cir. 1963)   Cited 9 times

    The stock ownership of the Alexandria Gazette, termed "America's Oldest Daily Newspaper," has been the source of continuous litigation in state and federal courts for a number of years. See Foster v. Carlin, 4 Cir., 200 F.2d 943 and Foster v. Carlin, 4 Cir., 218 F.2d 795. For many years the newspaper was wholly owned by Carlin's father, and it was upon his death that litigation began which ultimately resulted in Carlin obtaining 52% of the Gazette common stock under a settlement agreement between members of the Carlin family. The ownership of the 48% minority interest was initially in Carlin's daughter, Sara Perine Carlin. Mardel acquired this interest in November, 1952. The present action does not seek to hold Carlin responsible for his activities with respect to the operation of the Gazette for any time prior to the date Mardel purchased the stock, other than as to the admitted amount due by Carlin to the Gazette as of December 31, 1952, of $80,218.99.

  3. Mardel Securities, Inc. v. Alexandria Gazette Corporation

    278 F. Supp. 1010 (E.D. Va. 1967)   Cited 3 times

    The Court finds that he was at all times advised that under no circumstances could he ever recover attorneys' fees paid by Mardel prior to the filing of the action on May 6, 1957. It is quite true that Mardel incurred legal fees and costs in connection with the Alexandria Gazette matter long prior to the filing of the action on May 6, 1957. It now appears that Mardel was instrumental in the 1952 action of Foster v. Carlin, 218 F.2d 795 (4 Cir., 1955) at which time Mardel's assignor held an option to buy the stock of Charles Carlin's daughter, and in the later action filed by Mardel against the Alexandria Gazette and Carlin in the state court, which latter action was dismissed in January 1957, by a voluntary nonsuit. On these occasions Mardel was represented by Cuneo, a New York attorney, in association with Clarke, Richard, Moncure Whitehead. These fees and costs were paid in 1954 and 1955, including fees paid to Cuneo and Whitehead in representing Sara Perinne Carlin in the Foster case. They are totally unrelated to the litigation filed in 1957, except that Whitehead was counsel.

  4. Mardel Securities, Inc. v. Alexandria Gazette Corp.

    183 F. Supp. 7 (E.D. Va. 1960)   Cited 2 times

    The stock ownership of the Gazette has been the source of continuous litigation in state and federal courts for many years. In Foster v. Carlin, 4 Cir., 218 F.2d 795, Judge Soper reviews at length the various phases of the protracted litigation. An earlier opinion by Judge Dobie in Foster v. Carlin, 4 Cir., 200 F.2d 943, touches briefly on the past history of the Gazette's ownership and operation.

  5. Sav. Banks Ret. Sys. v. Clarke

    258 Md. 501 (Md. 1970)   Cited 15 times
    Finding that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently state a claim for fraud where they did not rely on the alleged misrepresentations

    Appel v. Hupfield, 198 Md. 374, 378, 84 A.2d 94, 95-96 (1951). See Babb v. Bolyard, 194 Md. 603, 609, 72 A.2d 13, 16 (1950) in which Judge (later Chief Judge) Markell reviews the prior Maryland cases in regard to the elements of fraud which must be proved to entitle a plaintiff to relief. See Foster v. Carlin, 218 F.2d 795, 801 (CA 4, 1955); Prosser, Law of Torts, 3rd Ed. § 103; and Bigelow on Fraud, Vol. I, Chap. III. See also 37 C.J.S. "Fraud," § 29, page 270 where it is stated: "There can be no redress for representations which do not influence complainant, because such representations cause no damage. Thus the hearer cannot secure redress for representations, where he failed to rely thereon because of their trivial character, because he was informed of the real facts and so could not be deceived thereby, . . . because he relied solely on information obtained from other sources, or because he relied solely on a guaranty."