Durham v. Seymour, 769
Decision Date | 02 March 1896 |
Docket Number | No. 769,769 |
Citation | 16 S.Ct. 452,161 U.S. 235,40 L.Ed. 682 |
Parties | DURHAM v. SEYMOUR |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This was a bill brought by Caleb W. Durham, under the provisions of section 4915 of the Revised Statutes, in the supreme court of the District of Columbia, to obtain a decree authorizing the commissioner of patents to issue a patent to him for an improved drainage apparatus for buildings. The supreme court adjudged on the evidence that Durham was not entitled to a decree, and dismissed the bill, whereupon he carried the case by appeal to the court of appeals for the District of Columbia, and that court affirmed the decision of the court below. From this decree an appeal was taken to this court and a motion was made to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Section 4915 is as follows:
Section 8 of the act establishing the court of appeals of the District of Columbia, and for other purposes, approved February 9, 1893 (27 Stat. 434, c. 74), provides:
The act of March 3, 1885 (23 Stat. 443, c. 355), reads thus:
'That no appeal or writ of error shall hereafter be allowed from any judgment or decree in any suit at law or in equity in the supreme court of the District of Columbia, or in the supreme court of any of the territories of the United States, unless the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, shall exceed the sum of five thousand dollars.
J. Nota McGill and Don M. Dickinson, for appellant.
Levin H. Campbell, for appellee.
Mr. Chief Justice FULLER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.
Appeals to this court from the court of appeals of the District of Columbia are governed by section 8 of the act of February 9, 1893. It is essential to our jurisdiction that it should appear that the matter in dispute in the courts below was money to an amount exceeding $5,000, exclusive of costs; or some right, the value of which could be ascertained in money, and exceeded that sum; or that the validity of a patent or copyright was involved; or that the validity of a treaty or statute of or an authority exercised under the United States was drawn in question. South Carolina v. Seymour, 153 U. S. 353, 14 Sup. Ct. 871, and cases cited.
The question here was whether Durham was 'entitled, according to law, to receive a patent for his invention, as specified in his claim, or for any part thereof, as the facts in the case may appear.' What Durham sought was to obtain an adjudication authorizing the commissioner of patents to issue a patent to him, and the matter in dispute was whether Durham was entitled to a patent as for a patentable invention.
Durham had presented his application for a patent, filed in due form, to the commissioner of patents in accordance with section 4888 of the Revised Statutes, which application was rejected by the commissioner, and thereupon he appealed to the supreme court of the District of Columbia in general term, which affirmed the decision of the commissioner. He then filed this bill in equity in accordance with section 4915 of the Revised Statutes, and although, as remarked by Mr. Justice Blatchford in Gandy v. Marble, 122 U. S. 432, 439, 7 Sup. Ct. 1290, it 'is a suit according to the ordinary course of equity practice and procedure, and is not a technical...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Blank v. Blank
...21 How. 582 16 L.Ed. 226, and the analogous cases of Kurtz v. Moffitt, 115 U.S. 487 6 S.Ct. 148, 29 L.Ed. 458; Durham v. Seymour, 161 U.S. 235 16 S.Ct. 452, 40 L.Ed. 682; and Perrine v. Slack, 164 U.S. 452 17 S. Ct. 79, 41 L.Ed. It may be objected that these declarations are merely dicta, n......
-
Duff v. Hildreth
... ... 127-131, 11 S.Ct. 982, 35 ... L.Ed. 659; Cowell v. City Water Supply Co. (C. C.) ... 96 F. 769; Creagh v. Equitable ... [183 Mass. 442] ... Life Association Soc. of U.S. (C. C.) 83 F. 849; ... 311; Rainey v. Herbert, 5 ... C. C. A. 183-187, 55 F. 443. The case is not like ... Durham v. Seymour, 161 U.S. 235, 16 S.Ct. 452, 40 ... L.Ed. 682, in which the whole controversy was ... ...
-
Agueda Benedicto De La Rama v. Esteban De La Rama
...L. ed. 226, and the analogous cases of Kurtz v. Moffitt, 115 U. S. 487, 29 L. ed. 458, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 148; Durham v. Seymour, 161 U. S. 235, 40 L. ed. 682, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 452; and Perrine v. Slack, 164 U. S. 452, 41 L. ed. 510, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. But the general rule above stated has no ap......
-
D. M. Steward Mfg. Co. v. Steward
... ... Shepherd & Co., 128 U.S. 605, 612, 9 S.Ct. 168, 170, 32 ... L.Ed. 538. And see, also, Durham v. Seymour, 161 ... U.S. 235, 16 S.Ct. 452, 40 L.Ed. 682. "The effect of ... assuming cognizance ... ...