Difference between revisions of "Dunkley Company"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
The '''Dunkley Company''' was a canning equipment manager started by S. J. Dunkley in Michigan. Dunkley moved his company to Oakland in 1915<ref>Obituary: S. J. Dunkley. [http://books.google.com/books?id=2S0dAQAAMAAJ&dq=western%20canner%20and%20packer&pg=PA75#v=onepage&q=western%20canner%20and%20packer&f=false February 1923 Western Canner and Packer].</ref>. | The '''Dunkley Company''' was a canning equipment manager started by S. J. Dunkley in Michigan. Dunkley moved his company to Oakland in 1915<ref>Obituary: S. J. Dunkley. [http://books.google.com/books?id=2S0dAQAAMAAJ&dq=western%20canner%20and%20packer&pg=PA75#v=onepage&q=western%20canner%20and%20packer&f=false February 1923 Western Canner and Packer].</ref>. | ||
| − | In 1916, the Dunkley Company sued many California fruit packers for infringing on the company's patents<ref>[[Central California Canneries]] vs. Dunkley Company. Dunkley argued the companies were infringing on his patents for peach skin removers, but the canneries responded that he had only done minor improvements to already-known processes[https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/ca9/briefs/govuscourtsca9briefs1311/gov.uscourts.ca9.03824.b.01.pdf No. 3824, United States Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, August 1921].</ref>. The company move may have been related to the lawsuit. | + | In 1916, the Dunkley Company sued many California fruit packers for infringing on the company's patents<ref>[[Central California Canneries]] vs. Dunkley Company. Dunkley argued the companies were infringing on his patents for peach skin removers, but the canneries responded that he had only done minor improvements to already-known processes[https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/ca9/briefs/govuscourtsca9briefs1311/gov.uscourts.ca9.03824.b.01.pdf No. 3824, United States Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, August 1921].</ref>. The company move may have been related to the lawsuit. During the hearings discussing changes to the 1920 Packer's Decree<ref>In [Packers' Consent Decree: Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, United States Senate, Sixty-Seventh Congress, Second Session, Pursuant to Senate Resolution 211, to Investigate Matters Concerning the Consent Decree Entered in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia in the Case of the United States of America, Plaintiff, V. Swift & Co. Et Al., Defendants.] U. S. Senate, March 23 and April 21, 1922.</ref>, the wholesalers at Tillman and Bendel claimed that Dunkley was actually controlled by the meat packer [[Swift and Company]], and their control existed only to attack independent California canners. |
==Locations== | ==Locations== | ||
Revision as of 19:26, 7 July 2015
| Business |
Manufacturer |
|---|---|
| Main Location |
Oakland |
| Aliases |
Michigan Canning and Machinery Company |
The Dunkley Company was a canning equipment manager started by S. J. Dunkley in Michigan. Dunkley moved his company to Oakland in 1915[1].
In 1916, the Dunkley Company sued many California fruit packers for infringing on the company's patents[2]. The company move may have been related to the lawsuit. During the hearings discussing changes to the 1920 Packer's Decree[3], the wholesalers at Tillman and Bendel claimed that Dunkley was actually controlled by the meat packer Swift and Company, and their control existed only to attack independent California canners.
Locations
| Location | Years | Address | Details | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kalamazoo, Michigan | - 1915 | Oakland | 1915-1922 |
References
- ↑ Obituary: S. J. Dunkley. February 1923 Western Canner and Packer.
- ↑ Central California Canneries vs. Dunkley Company. Dunkley argued the companies were infringing on his patents for peach skin removers, but the canneries responded that he had only done minor improvements to already-known processesNo. 3824, United States Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, August 1921.
- ↑ In [Packers' Consent Decree: Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, United States Senate, Sixty-Seventh Congress, Second Session, Pursuant to Senate Resolution 211, to Investigate Matters Concerning the Consent Decree Entered in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia in the Case of the United States of America, Plaintiff, V. Swift & Co. Et Al., Defendants.] U. S. Senate, March 23 and April 21, 1922.