Page 161 - My FlipBook

HISTORY OF DENTAL SUEGERY 131

with tlie International Tooth Crown Company, viz. : the Low Bridge Patent.
Much time and effort liave been spent in preparation of defense for tliis (we
trust the closing) suit.''
It was stated, however, that althougfi this suit, if decided favorably to the
association, may finally settle the claim of the International Tooth Crown Com-
pany and the Low bridge patent, it would not finish the work of the association,
as it was then defending two other patent siaits "Brought against its members
by other patent companies, and in addition to these, still other suits are threat-
ened." It was also made to appear strongly that the association was not formed
solely to defend patent suits, "but to Viand tlie profession together and place it
in a position where it can successfully resist extortion or injustice in any
form."
A meeting of the association was held at Asbury Park, N. J., during this
year, which considered the question of disbanding the association, after the
decision in the case above referred to should have been reached, but it was
decided that in view of the fact "that there were numerous corporations and
combinations now kept in check by the association, arid that if it were given
up they would be an annoyance to the dentists," it was determined to continue
the activities of this association. Its protection, however, was from that time
on only to be given to members of the association.
j
The United States circuit court of appeals for the district embracing the
states of New York, Connecticut and Vermont, dismissed the suit brought to
enjoin the infringement of the Low bridge patent, which was a great victory
for tlie association. The value of the work accomplished consisted not only in
a saving of a large amount of money to the members of the dental profession,
but, great as the benefit was, the liberation and relief from the annoyance of
all sorts of unjust demands, which gave dentists a period of peace and security
from all such exactions, was infinitely greater.
In 189f), the International Tooth Crown Company succeeded in securing
favorable judgment in which the Low bridge patent was involved. Immediately
thereafter, that corporation repeated its demands upon dentists in the east, and
went so far as to put receivers into the offices of a number of dentists in Boston,
who were members of the protective association. This association took up the
defense, had the keepers removed from the offices, and by June, 1900, forced
the Crown company to pay all costs of proceedings, and put this corporation
under "bonds for damages for illegal action."
The removal of these receivers' custodians or keepers required a l>ond for