George v. Victor Talking Mach Co
| Decision Date | 17 December 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 128,128 |
| Citation | 55 S.Ct. 229,293 U.S. 377,79 L.Ed. 439 |
| Parties | GEORGE v. VICTOR TALKING MACH. CO |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Minitree J. Fulton, of Richmond, Va., for petitioner.
Mr. Louis Levinson, of Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent.
Review was limited to the question of the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of Appeals. The suit was brought for the infringement of the common-law right of property in a song, and the bill sought an accounting of profits made by the defendant. The District Court sustained the plaintiff's right as author and found infringement. Decree was entered granting an injunction and appointing a special master to take and state an account of profits and to report to the court, with the usual provisions for exceptions to the report. The decree was interlocutory. The Palmyra, 10 Wheat. 502, 6 L.Ed. 376; Perkins v. Fourniquet, 6 How. 206, 208, 209, 12 L.Ed. 406; Craighead v. Wilson, 18 How. 199, 202, 15 L.Ed. 332 ( Forgay v. Conrad, 6 How. 201, 12 L.Ed. 404); Beebe v. Russell, 19 How. 283, 287, 15 L.Ed. 668; Humiston v. Stainthorp, 2 Wall. 106, 17 L.Ed. 905; Keystone Manganese & Iron Co. v. Martin, 132 U.S. 91, 93, 97, 10 S.Ct. 32, 33 L.Ed. 275; McGourkey v. Toledo & Ohio C. Rwy. Co., 146 U.S. 536, 547, 13 S.Ct. 170, 36 L.Ed. 1079; Guarantee Co. v. Mechanics' Savings Bank & Trust Co., 173 U.S. 582, 586, 19 S.Ct. 551, 43 L.Ed. 818; Simmons Co. v. Grier Brothers Co., 258 U.S. 82, 89, 42 S.Ct. 196, 66 L.Ed. 475. The decree was entered on March 31, 1933, and the appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals was not taken until May 18, 1933. The Circuit Court of Appeals entertained the appeal and reversed the decree of the District Court. As the appeal was not taken within the time prescribed by law, the Circuit Court of Appeals was without jurisdiction. Jud. Code § 129, 28 U.S.C. § 227 (28 USCA § 227). The decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to that court with directions to dismiss the appeal.
It is so ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Browder v. Director, Department of Corrections of Illinois
...Matton Steamboat Co. v. Murphy, 319 U.S. 412, 415, 63 S.Ct. 1126, 1128, 87 L.Ed. 1483 (1943); George v. Victor Talking Mach. Co., 293 U.S. 377, 379, 55 S.Ct. 229, 230, 79 L.Ed. 439 (1934). The purpose of the rule is clear: It is "to set a definite point of time when litigation shall be at a......
-
Gonzalez v. Thaler
...taken within the time prescribed by law," the "Court of Appeals [is] without jurisdiction." George v. Victor Talking Machine Co., 293 U.S. 377, 379, 55 S.Ct. 229, 79 L.Ed. 439 (1934)(per curiam); see also United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229–230, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960). ......
-
Baltimore Contractors v. Bodinger
...its predecessors. The appealability of routine interlocutory injunctive orders raised few questions. See George v. Victor Talking Machine Co., 293 U.S. 377, 55 S.Ct. 229, 79 L.Ed. 439. There the statute was clear. It was when stays of proceedings, in distinction to injunctions, were appeale......
-
Baldwin v. Redwood City
...Cir. 1975); Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc., 461 F.2d 1040, 1041 (2d Cir. 1972).5 George v. Victor Talking Mach. Co., 293 U.S. 377, 378-79, 55 S.Ct. 229, 79 L.Ed. 439 (1934); Bowles v. Rice, 152 F.2d 543, 544 (6th Cir. 1946).6 Adamian v. Jacobsen, 523 F.2d 929, 931 (9th Cir. ......