Clements v. Odorless Excavating Apparatus Co.
| Decision Date | 22 June 1887 |
| Citation | 10 A. 442,67 Md. 461 |
| Parties | CLEMENTS v. ODORLESS EXCAVATING APPARATUS CO. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from superior court, Baltimore city.
BRYAN J., dissenting.
John F. Preston, for appellant.
J Alex. Preston, for appellee.
A bill was filed by the appellee, in the United States circuit court for the district of Maryland, against the appellant, for the infringement of reissued letters patent granted to Lewis R. Keizer, for an apparatus used in cleaning and emptying privies, the original patent having been granted to Henry C. Bull. The appellant, in his answer, denied that Bull was the inventor of apparatus described in the original patent, and charged that the reissued letters patent granted to Keizer were not for the same invention described in the original patent, but for other and different inventions not known to Bull at the time the original patent was granted; and further, that the said reissued letters patent were fraudulently obtained, and that the specifications and claims were fraudulently enlarged for the purpose of including other and subsequent inventions. The appellant also claimed that the apparatus or machine used by him was constructed in accordance with letters patent granted to Samuel R. Scharf and Jerome Bradley. The case was heard on bill, answer, and proof, and the circuit court, (Judges BOND and MORRIS,) being of opinion that the machine used by the appellant was an infringement of the reissued letters patent granted to Keizer, enjoined the appellant from making, using, or vending said machine containing the inventions and improvements described in said reissued letters patent. On appeal to the supreme court of the United States, the decree below was reversed, on the ground that the improvement claimed in the reissued letters patent granted to Keizer was but an expansion of the Scharf and Bradley improvements.
This action is brought by the appellant to recover damages of the appellee for having instituted suit, in the United States district court, maliciously and without probable cause. Whatever may be said of the earlier decisions, it is quite well settled that an action will lie in some cases for the malicious prosecution of a civil suit without probable or reasonable cause, although there is some conflict as to the cases embraced within the rule. Such suits are not, however, encouraged, because the law recognizes the rights of every one to sue for that which he honestly believes to be his own, and the payment of costs incident to the failure to maintain the suit is ordinarily considered a sufficient penalty. In McNamee v. Minke, 49 Md. 122, we had occasion to consider the law in regard to such actions, and the court said: "When it has been attempted to hold a party liable for the prosecution of a civil proceeding, it has generally been in cases where there has been an alleged malicious arrest of the person, as in the case of Turner v. Walker, 3 Gill & J. 377, or a groundless seizure of property, or the false and malicious placing the plaintiff in bankruptcy, or the like." Now, if it be conceded that a bill in equity by the appellee, to restrain the appellant from using an apparatus or machine, on the ground that it was an infringement of letters patent issued to the plaintiff, comes within the rule thus laid down, (without, however, so deciding,) it is sufficient to say there was no evidence in this case to sustain the action. To entitle the appellant to recover, he was bound to offer evidence from which a jury could reasonably find that the bill for an injunction was instituted by the appellee, not only maliciously, but without probable cause.
Now what was the evidence relied on to support the action? In the first place, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial