Automobile Abstract & Title Co. v. Haggerty

• Decision Date: 10 January 1931
• Docket Number: No. 4485.,4485.
• Citation: 46 F.2d 86
• Parties: AUTOMOBILE ABSTRACT & TITLE CO. v. HAGGERTY, Secretary of State for Michigan.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

46 F.2d 86 (1931)

AUTOMOBILE ABSTRACT & TITLE CO. v. HAGGERTY, Secretary of State for Michigan.

No. 4485.

District Court, E. D. Michigan, S. D.

January 10, 1931.

David B. Tippery, of Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff.

Wilber M. Brucker, Atty. Gen., and Charles Rubiner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant.

SIMONS, District Judge.

This cause is now before the court upon a motion to dismiss the bill of complaint. As nearly as may be gathered from the insufficient averments of the bill, the plaintiff claims to be a common-law trust suing in its own right as the assignee of a patent covering a new and useful improvement in abstracts of title for automobiles; that the defendant is the secretary of state for the state of Michigan, or was at the time the bill was filed, and that the defendant in such capacity issued and sold certificates and abstracts of title to owners of automobiles, which certificates and abstracts infringe the plaintiff's patent; that by Act No. 46 of the Public Acts of Michigan of 1921 it was made a penal offense for any one to purchase automobile abstracts otherwise than from the defendant, and that a concerted effort has been and is being made by certain influential groups (not named nor made parties to the bill) to extend and enlarge infringement by inducing all states to adopt the abstract of title, and enact legislation for its enforcement, and that Act No. 46 of the Public Acts of 1921 is unconstitutional and void as repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the federal laws passed in pursuance thereof, and that the defendant by his usurpation and infringement of the plaintiff's invention has appropriated and deprived the plaintiff of its property throughout the state of Michigan without due process of law and just compensation therefor. The relief prayed for in the bill, in addition to the usual prayer for process, includes prayers for the impaneling of a jury to determine the fact of infringement, for punitive as well as compensatory damages, for a perpetual injunction "inhibiting" continued production and sale by the defendant of abstracts, and for an accounting.

The motion to dismiss is based upon numerous objections to the sufficiency of the bill of complaint, and upon the ground that the suit is in essence a suit against the state of Michigan, and so cannot be maintained in the absence of the express consent of the state. It is unnecessary to discuss in detail the many objections raised, and others which might be raised with respect to the sufficiency of the bill of complaint. Some of them might perhaps be cured by amendment. It is sufficient to state some of them. The suit is entitled in the name of a common-law trust as plaintiff, but is brought by and through Frank Palazzolo, its treasurer and trustee. Where the common-law trust was organized is not stated. Whether Palazzolo is the sole trustee, or one of a number, or what his citizenship is, is not indicated. Averment of jurisdiction and venue are lacking. Though it is stated that an act of the state of Michigan is unconstitutional, no holding by the court in respect to it is prayed for, nor is it indicated to what provisions of the United States Constitution the said statute is repugnant. There is no direct or express charge of infringement, although perhaps by broad and liberal inference the charge of infringement may be read into the bill. It is not indicated in what respect there has been infringement, nor what claims of the patent are relied upon. Punitive damages are claimed from the defendant, although the basis for such claim seems to be concerted effort to extend infringement by persons not mentioned nor made parties to the bill. Matters of evidence are pleaded, and their relevancy is left to inference. Although the bill claims...