Diamond Drill & Machine Co. v. Kelley Bros & Spielman
| Decision Date | 05 July 1905 |
| Citation | 138 F. 833 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| Parties | DIAMOND DRILL & MACHINE CO. v. KELLEY BROS. & SPIELMAN. |
Horace Pettit, for petitioners.
William C. Strawbridge, opposed.
The finality of litigation and the stability of judicial decision both require that conclusions which have been reached as the outcome of legal proceedings in which the parties have had full opportunity to be heard shall not be disturbed except where it is necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice. The defeated party is always disappointed, and there is a natural temptation to try by some means to regain the place that has been lost. Applications, therefore, to reopen the case in order to permit the introduction of further evidence in the hope of effecting a change, are not looked upon with favor; the parties being required to present all the evidence which they have at the original hearing, including that which with the exercise of reasonable diligence was within their reach. The new evidence suggested in any case must in consequence not only have been unknown to the party, but practically unattainable, and must also be so clear and convincing that it is not only calculated to bring about a different result, but that there is little question as to its doing so. This is a familiar rule, which it requires the citation of no authorities to support. The only question is whether the defendants have brought themselves within it.
As this is a preliminary motion, any expression of opinion upon the proposed proofs, except so far as it is necessarily involved in the granting or refusing of the application, is out of place. Neither is the evidence here which will be produced to contradict and possibly overcome them, so that it is only their prima facie character that is passed upon. This is to be borne in mind with regard to whatever may be said. It is sufficient, therefore, for the present, to note that, if the testimony of Mr. Maier is believed, a wire belt fastener, the exact counterpart of that in suit, was made and used by him at the works of the Trenton Spring Mattress Company, at Trenton, N.J., as early as 1885, some four years prior to the application for the patent on which the complainants rely and that this use was persisted in intermittently for upwards of two or three years. Nor is this left to rest on his statement only, but is confirmed by three others, who substantially agree with him, both as to the character of the device, and the time and place of its use. It is true that there is nothing in the way of records or material exhibits to back this up. No sample of the fastening, for instance has been produced from among the appliances of the shop, and we have nothing therefore but the memory of these witnesses. Nor was the device apparently regarded as of sufficient merit to induce a...
To continue reading
Request your trial