International Postal Supply Company of New York v. Dwight Bruce
Decision Date | 31 May 1904 |
Docket Number | No. 215,215 |
Citation | 24 S.Ct. 820,48 L.Ed. 1134,194 U.S. 601 |
Parties | INTERNATIONAL POSTAL SUPPLY COMPANY OF NEW YORK v. DWIGHT H. BRUCE |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
International Postal Supply Company.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 602-604 intentionally omitted] Mr. William K. Richardson and Assistant Attorney General McReynolds for bruce.
Statement by Mr. Justice Holmes:
This case is governed by Belknap v. Schild, 161 U. S. 10, 40 L. ed. 599, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 443. There an injunction was sought against the commandant of the United States navy yard at Mare island, California, and some of his subordinates, to prevent the use of a caisson gate in the dry dock at that place, contrary to the rights of the plaintiff, as patentee. The case was heard on pleas setting up that the caisson gate was made and used by the United States for public purposes, and, as they were construed, that it was the property of the United States. The pleas were held bad as answers to the whole bill, because the bill also sought damages, and the defendants might be personally liable, but it was held that an injunction could not be granted, and the bill was dismissed, without prejudice to an action at law. Vavasseur v. Krupp, L. R. 9 Ch. Div. 351, was cited for the proposition which was made the turning point of the case, that the court could not interfere with an object of property unless it had before it the person entitled to the thing, and this proposition was held to extend to an injunction against the use of the thing as well as to a destruction of it or to a removal of the part which infringed. It was pointed out that the defendants had no personal interest in the continuance of the use, and that, so far as the injunction was concerned, the suit really was against the United States. Of course, if those defendants were enjoined, other persons attempting to use the caisson gate would be, and thus the injunction practically would work a prohibition against its use by the United States.
Belknap v. Schild differed from United States v. Lee, 106 U. S. 196, 27 L. ed. 171, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 240, and Tindal v. Wesley, 167 U. S. 204, 42 L. ed. 137, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 770, and also from American School of Magnetic Healing v. McAnnulty, 187 U. S. 94, 47 L. ed. 90, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 33, relied on by the appellant, in the fact, among others, that the title of the United States to the caisson gate was admitted, and therefore the United States was a necessary party to a suit which was intended to deprive it of the incident of title,—the right to use the gate. As the United States could not be made a party, the suit failed. In the case at bar the United States is not the owner of the machines, it is true, but it is a lessee in possession, for a term which has not expired. It has a property,—a right in rem,—in the machines, which, though less extensive than absolute ownership, has the same incident of a right to use them while it lasts. This right cannot be interfered with behind its back; and, as it cannot be made a party, this suit, like that of Belknap v. Schild, must fail. The answer to the question certified must be 'No.' Whether or not a renewal of the lease could be enjoined is not before us.
The question is answered in the negative, and it will be so certified.
It is to be assumed upon this record that the plaintiff, the International Postal Supply Company, is the owner of letters patent granted by the United States for new and useful improvements in stamp canceling and postmarking machines; and that the defendant, Bruce, against the will of the patentee, and without paying any royalty to him, is using, and, unless enjoined, will continue to use, machines that infringe the plaintiff's letters patent.
Can the defendant be prevented from thus violating rights of the plaintiff in respect of his patent, the validity of which is not here disputed? In answering this question it is necessary to bring together the observations of this court in some cases heretofore decided. That being done, but little additional need be said.
In James v. Campbell, 104 U. S. 356, 357, 26 L. ed 786, 787, this court, speaking by Mr. Justice Bradley, said: Observe, that the court said that, without compensation to the patentee, the government could not appropriate or use his invention.
These views were reaffirmed by the unanimous judgment of this court in United States v. Palmer, 128 U. S. 262, 272, 32 L. ed. 442, 445, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 104. And as late as Belknap v. Schild, 161 U. S. 10, 16, 40 L. ed. 599, 601, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 443, 444, after observing that in England the grant of a patent for an invention was considered as simply an exercise of the royal prerogative, and was not to be construed as precluding the Crown from using the invention at its pleasure, the court said: citing United States v. Burns, 12 Wall. 246, 252, 20 L. ed. 388, 389; Cammeyer v. Newton, 94 U. S. 225, 235, 24 L. ed. 72, 76; James v. Campbell, 104 U. S. 356, 358, 26 L. ed. 786, 787; Hollister v. Benedict & B. Mfg. Co. 113 U. S. 59, 67, 28 L. ed. 901, 903, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 717; United States v. Palmer, 128 U. S. 262, 270, 272, 32 L. ed. 442, 444, 445, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 104.
In the previous case of United States v. Lee, 106 U. S. 196, 27 L. ed. 171, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 240, which was a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Bosworth
... ... Henry ... L. Stone, Helm Bruce, Ed. S. Jouett, Wm. A. Colston, and ... Robt. E ... Farmers' Loan & Trust ... Company, 154 U.S. 362, 14 Sup.Ct. 1047, 38 L.Ed. 1014, ... 919, 44 L.Ed. 1140; International Postal Supply Co. v ... Bruce, 194 U.S. 601, ... state, to wit, stocks and bonds in New York, which were not ... used in the business, and ... ...
-
West Coast Exploration Co. v. McKay
...was no jurisdiction within the rulings in Belknap v. Schild, 161 U. S. 10, 16 S.Ct. 443, 40 L.Ed. 599; International Postal Supply Co. v. Bruce, 194 U.S. 601, 24 S.Ct. 820, 48 L.Ed. 1134; Louisiana v. McAdoo, 234 U.S. 627, 34 S.Ct. 938, 58 L.Ed. 1506; Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U.S. 373, 2......
-
Larson v. Domestic Foreign Commerce Corporation
...College, supra, 221 U.S. 636, 649, 31 S.Ct. 654, 659, 55 L.Ed. 890, 35 L.R.A.,N.S., 243; see International Postal Supply Co. v. Bruce, 194 U.S. 601, 605-606, 24 S.Ct. 820, 821, 48 L.Ed. 1134. Since the cases to which reference has just been made usually involve State debts and money in a St......
-
Moon v. Hines
... ... Georgia Railroad Company. Judgment for defendant, and ... plaintiff ... Schild, supra; Int ... Postal Supp. Co. v. Bruce, 194 U.S. 601, 24 Sup.Ct. 820, ... ...
-
ARBITRARY PROPERTY INTERFERENCE DURING A GLOBAL PANDEMIC AND BEYOND.
...See Teter, Letting Congress Vote, supra note 12, at 1443. (161.) See Starr, supra note 12, at 16. (162.) Int'l Postal Supply Co. v. Bruce, 194 U.S. 601, 613 (163.) See Chee, supra note 9, at 577. (164.) See, e.g., Phillip Wagner, Inc. v. Leser, 239 U.S. 207, 215-16 (1915); Helvering v. City......