Jacob Wilson, Complainant v. Daniel Barnum

• Decision Date: 01 January 1850
• Citation: 49 U.S. 258,8 How. 258,12 L.Ed. 1070
• Parties: JACOB P. WILSON, COMPLAINANT, v. DANIEL BARNUM
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

49 U.S. 258

8 How. 258

12 L.Ed. 1070

JACOB P. WILSON, COMPLAINANT, v. DANIEL BARNUM.

January Term, 1850

THIS case came up from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania upon a certificate of division in opinion between the judges thereof.

It is not necessary to do more than insert the statement of facts and point of division, as they are found in the record.

Statement of Facts and Point of Division of Judges.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

At a Circuit Court of the United States, begun and held at the city of Philadelphia, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on the 13th day of November, in the year of our Lord 1849.

Present, the Honorable Robert C. Grier, and the Honorable John K. Kane.

JACOB, P. WILSON v. DANIEL BARNUM.

Statement of Facts.

This was a suit in equity. The bill was filed April 5th, 1849, by the plaintiff, as assignee of letters patent issued to William Woodworth. After due notice, a motion was made for a special injunction, which was fully heard before his Honor, John K. Kane, at a regular Circuit Court, on the 21st, 22d, 23d, 24th, and 25th days of May, A. D. 1849, his Honor, Judge Grier, being absent. The defendant resisted the motion, and filed affidavits on his part, when, after a full hearing of the parties and arguments of counsel, on the 1st day of June, 1849, a special injunction was granted, a copy of which is annexed to this statement. Afterwards, on the 4th day of June, 1849, the defendant filed an answer, setting up the fact of his having a patent for his machine, and denying all similarity between it and that of the plaintiff; which same defence had been previously set up by the said affidavits, on the hearing of the motion for the injunction. Afterwards, on the 29th day of June, 1849, a motion was made by the defendant to dissolve the injunction, which motion was duly argued on the bill and affidavits on the part of the plaintiff, and on the answer and affidavits on the part of the defendant; and on the 1st day of August, 1849, an order was made in the cause directing an issue to be tried by a jury, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the machines of the defendant were or were not infringements of the machine of the plaintiff, and ordering the injunction to stand, on the plaintiff giving security to the defendant in the sum of ten thousand dollars, which was done.

The issue came on to be tried by a jury on the 17th day of October, 1849, and after a protracted trial, the jury was discharged, not being able to agree.

At this present term of the court, both of the judges being present, a motion was made by the defendant to dissolve the injunction, and arguments of counsel were heard thereon. Thereupon, without any decision being had on said motion, and upon an agreement of the parties, with the consent and by the direction of the court, this cause was brought to a final hearing on the pleadings and the proofs which had been taken herein, as well as on the proofs and evidence which were put in on the trial of the issue before the jury, and which lastnamed proofs and evidence were, for the purpose of said final hearing, considered as proofs in this cause.

The pleadings were a bill, an answer, and a replication, copies of which are hereunto annexed, and a copy of all the proofs and evidence used on said final hearing is also hereunto annexed.

On said final hearing, it appeared and was determined by the court as matter of fact,——

1. That letters patent of the United States were issued to William Woodworth, on the 27th day of December, 1828, of the tenor and effect mentioned in the bill.

2. That William Woodworth died intestate, on the 9th day of February, 1839, in the city of New York, and that William W. Woodworth, his son, and one of his heirs at law, was thereupon duly appointed his administrator by the surrogate of the city and county of New York.

3. That on the 16th day of November, 1842, an extension of the said letters patent for seven years from the 27th day of December, 1842, was duly granted by the United States, under the eighteenth section of the Patent Act of July 4, 1836, to the said William W. Woodworth, as administrator as aforesaid.

4. That by an act of Congress of the United States, passed February 26th, 1845, the said letters patent were further extended to the said William W. Woodworth, as administrator as aforesaid, for seven years from the 29th day of December, 1849.

5. That on the 8th day of July, 1845, the said letters patent were surrendered for a defective specification, and renewed letters patent were thereupon issued on the same day, on an amended specification, to the said William W. Woodworth, as administrator as aforesaid; which renewed letters patent were of the tenor and effect set forth in the bill. An authenticated copy of the said renewed letters patent of July 8, 1845, and of the specification and drawings thereto, and an authenticated copy of the said original letters patent of December 27th, 1828, and of the specification and drawings thereto, were produced on the hearing, and may be produced on argument, before the Supreme Court of the United States.

6. That the exclusive right of the said renewed...