Columbus Watch Co v. Robbins, No. 1,242

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtFULLER
Citation37 L.Ed. 445,148 U.S. 266,13 S.Ct. 594
Docket NumberNo. 1,242
Decision Date27 March 1893
PartiesCOLUMBUS WATCH CO. et al. v. ROBBINS et al

148 U.S. 266
13 S.Ct. 594
37 L.Ed. 445
COLUMBUS WATCH CO. et al.

v.

ROBBINS et al.

No. 1,242.
March 27, 1893.

Page 267

James Watson and M. D. Leggett, for appellants.

Lysander Hill, Geo. S. Prindle, and Frederick P. Fish, for appellees.

Mr. Chief Justice FULLER delivered the opinion of the court.

The record in this case consists of the following certificate, signed on the 10th day of October, 1892, by the judges then holding the circuit court of appeals for the sixth circuit:

'This cause comes before this court by an appeal from the decree of the circuit court of the United States for the eastern division of the southern district of Ohio, sustaining the letters patent of the appellees, and declaring that the appellants have infringed said letters patent, and directing the issue of a perpetual injunction, and ordering the statement of an account of profits and damages.

'The transcript presented to this court shows that the appeal was taken immediately from said decree, before accounting was had. Both parties desired that this court should give a full hearing on the merits of said decree, so far as relate to the validity of the patent and infringement, and should enter a final decree in this court thereon, the parties agreeing between themselves to suspend accounting until the decision of this court can be had. This court, however, cannot

Page 268

find that they have, under the seventh section of the act creating United States circuit appellate courts, jurisdiction to grant such a hearing and enter such a final decree as is asked, because said decree of the circuit court is only an interlocutory decree, and presents on appeal, under section 7, only the question whether the decree for an injunction, interlocutory in fact, however final in form, was improvidently granted in the legal discretion of the court, and involves only incidentally the question of the validity of the patent and the infringement complained of. The circuit court of appeals for the fifth circuit, under similar circumstances, after listening to adverse argument, in Jones Co. v. Munger Manuf'g Co., 50 Fed. Rep. 785, 1 C. C. A. 668, held that said section 7 gave jurisdiction to the court, on agreement of parties, to render a final decree on the merits of the validity and infringement of the patent involved. As the judgment of this court differs from that of a co-ordinate court, the instruction of the supreme court is respectfully requested upon the question.

'It is therefore ordered that a copy...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 practice notes
  • Sinclair v. Gunzenhauser, 21,728
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 27 maart 1912
    ...the administration of state laws. Barron v. Mayor, etc. (1833), 7 Pet. *243, 8 L.Ed. 672; Thorington v. Montgomery (1893), 147 U.S. 490, 13 S.Ct. 594, 37 L.Ed. 252; Brown v. New Jersey (1899), 175 U.S. 172, 20 S.Ct. 77, 44 L.Ed. 119; Capital City Dairy Co. v. Ohio (1902), 183 U.S. 238, 22 S......
  • Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company v. Lightheiser, 20,582
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 31 oktober 1906
    ...application to the states, and therefore has no application to the act of 1893, supra. Thorington v. Montgomery (1893), 147 U.S. 490, 492, 13 S.Ct. 594, 37 L.Ed. 252; Brown v. New Jersey (1899), 175 U.S. 172, 174, 20 S.Ct. 77, 44 L.Ed. 119, and cases cited; Capital City Dairy Co. v. Ohio (1......
  • Inland Steel Co. v. Yedinak, 21,376
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 23 februari 1909
    ...exclusively in restriction of federal power, and has no application to the several states. Thorington v. Montgomery (1893), 147 U.S. 490, 13 S.Ct. 594, 37 L.Ed. 252; Capital City Dairy Co. v. Ohio (1902), 183 U.S. 238, 22 S.Ct. 120, 46 L.Ed. 171. It is contended that these statutes unlawful......
  • Republic Iron & Steel Co. v. The State, 19,785
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 8 april 1903
    ...its liberty and property under the fifth amendment of the federal Constitution (see Thorington v. Montgomery, 147 U.S. 490, 37 L.Ed. 252, 13 S.Ct. 594 S.Ct. [160 Ind. 384] 394, 37 L.Ed. 252; Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366 at 366-382, 18 S.Ct. 383, 42 L.Ed. 780; State v. Boswell, 104 Ind. 541......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
21 cases
  • Sinclair v. Gunzenhauser, 21,728
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 27 maart 1912
    ...the administration of state laws. Barron v. Mayor, etc. (1833), 7 Pet. *243, 8 L.Ed. 672; Thorington v. Montgomery (1893), 147 U.S. 490, 13 S.Ct. 594, 37 L.Ed. 252; Brown v. New Jersey (1899), 175 U.S. 172, 20 S.Ct. 77, 44 L.Ed. 119; Capital City Dairy Co. v. Ohio (1902), 183 U.S. 238, 22 S......
  • Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company v. Lightheiser, 20,582
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 31 oktober 1906
    ...application to the states, and therefore has no application to the act of 1893, supra. Thorington v. Montgomery (1893), 147 U.S. 490, 492, 13 S.Ct. 594, 37 L.Ed. 252; Brown v. New Jersey (1899), 175 U.S. 172, 174, 20 S.Ct. 77, 44 L.Ed. 119, and cases cited; Capital City Dairy Co. v. Ohio (1......
  • Inland Steel Co. v. Yedinak, 21,376
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 23 februari 1909
    ...exclusively in restriction of federal power, and has no application to the several states. Thorington v. Montgomery (1893), 147 U.S. 490, 13 S.Ct. 594, 37 L.Ed. 252; Capital City Dairy Co. v. Ohio (1902), 183 U.S. 238, 22 S.Ct. 120, 46 L.Ed. 171. It is contended that these statutes unlawful......
  • Republic Iron & Steel Co. v. The State, 19,785
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 8 april 1903
    ...its liberty and property under the fifth amendment of the federal Constitution (see Thorington v. Montgomery, 147 U.S. 490, 37 L.Ed. 252, 13 S.Ct. 594 S.Ct. [160 Ind. 384] 394, 37 L.Ed. 252; Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366 at 366-382, 18 S.Ct. 383, 42 L.Ed. 780; State v. Boswell, 104 Ind. 541......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT