Hohorst v. Howard
| Decision Date | 01 December 1888 |
| Citation | 37 F. 97 |
| Parties | HOHORST v. HOWARD. [1] |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
W. S. Logan, for complainant.
John L. Devenny, for defendant.
This action was brought for an alleged infringement of a patent. The original bill prays that the defendant be required to make discovery as to the use of said invention and of all gains and profits received by him therefrom, or by means thereof, and that he be required to account to the plaintiff; and an injunction is prayed for against the defendant, his agents, etc. The answer of the original defendant is a specific denial. The original defendant having died, his executrix denies complainant's right to have the action revived, for the reason that no injunction can issue against the dead defendant, nor against his executrix, who is not alleged to infringe; and that therefore, as the title of the principal relief-- the injunction and discovery-- fails, the incident right to an account fails also. Defendant cites Root v. Railway Co., 105 U.S. 189, and Draper v. Hudson, 1 Holmes, 208 (1873.) The whole subject was discussed in the later case of Kirk v. Du Bois, 28 F. 460, (1886, W.D. Pa.,) and the conclusion reached that Root v. Railway Co. does not go to the extent of holding that jurisdiction is entirely ousted by the subsequent happening of an event which precludes the exercise of the power to grant an injunction. The decision in Kirk v. Du Bois will be followed here. The complainant is entitled to the usual decree that the suit be revived against the executrix, and be put in the same state it was in prior to the death of the deceased.
---------
Notes:
[1] Reported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.
---------
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Supreme Lodge Knights of Pythias v. Dalzell
...2 Strobh. Eq. (S. C.) 227; Grubb v. Starkey, 98 Va. 831; Bush v. Jones, 184 U.S. 598, 46 L.Ed. 707; Kirk v. Du Bois, 28 F. 460; Hoborst v. Howard, 37 F. 97; 16 Cyc. 113. (d) When a court in equity has once jurisdiction in a controversy, it will retain jurisdiction for all purposes and will ......
-
United States v. INTERNATIONAL UNION, ETC.
...issued — render unnecessary any future continuation of the injunction. Cf. Rice & Adams Corporation v. Lathrop, 278 U.S. 509; Hohorst v. Howard, 37 F. 97; Miller v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co., 66 App.Div. 470, 472, 73 N.Y. Supp. 376, 377, sustained as to the point here involved in 184......
-
Truth Seeker Co. v. Durning
...mandatory action was no longer necessary. Rice & Adams Corporation v. Lathrop, 278 U.S. 509, 49 S.Ct. 220, 73 L. Ed. 480; Hohorst v. Howard, C.C.E.D.N. Y., 37 F. 97; cf. Chafee, Cases on Equitable Relief Against Torts, 1924, 252n.; former Equity Rule 23, 28 U.S.C.A. § 723 Appendix. Of cours......
-
Pathe Exchange v. Dalke, 3079-3082.
...these reasons I am of opinion that this cause of action survives, and that the motion to dismiss should be denied." See, also, Hohorst v. Howard (C. C.) 37 F. 97; Griswold v. Hilton (C. C.) 87 F. We are of the opinion that the prayer for an accounting in the bills would not of itself give e......