McLaughlin v. People's Ry. Co.
| Citation | 21 F. 574 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
| Decision Date | 19 September 1884 |
| Parties | McLAUGHLIN v. PEOPLE'S RAILWAY CO. and another. [1] |
Jones & Delano, with F. X. McCabe, for complainant.
Paul Bakewell, for people's Railway Company.
The bill charges that letters patent for a street-car gate were issued to the complainant and one J. F. Madison on August 3 1869; that neither of said patentees ever licensed or granted to defendant the People's Railway Company, or any one else, the right or privilege to make or use said gate, and that said defendant railway company is now, and has been for 13 years last past, using and constructing such patented street-car gates upon its street cars. The prayer is for injunction and accounting. The single question which I deem necessary to consider is whether there has been such laches on the part of complainant as will prevent a court of equity from taking cognizance of this suit. The bill shows no excuse for his delay; neither ignorance of the conduct of the defendant, nor inability on the complainant's part to assert his rights. It is left upon the naked assertion that the patent, existing for now over 15 years, the defendant has for 13 years been infringing thereon.
Under these circumstances, whatever action at law he may have for damages, I think his own laches such as prevents a court of equity from interfering by injunction. That the general principles of equity jurisprudence control in patent cases cannot be doubted. Rev. St. Sec. 629, par. 9; also, section 4921, which last section contains these words:
'The several courts vested with jurisdiction of cases arising under the patent laws shall have power to grant injunctions according to the course and principles of courts of equity to prevent the violation of any rights secured by a patent, upon such terms as the court may deem reasonable.'
Now, generally speaking, the laches of complainant is sufficient ground for non-interference on the part of a court of equity. Nearly all the life-time of this patent the complainant has remained silent, by his silence consenting to, or at least acquiescing in, the acts of the defendant. To interfere now by injunction would seem manifestly inequitable. That this question of laches can be raised by demurrer, and that it is a good defense to a bill in equity, is abundantly sustained by the authorities. In Walk. Pat. Sec. 597, it is said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Crebbin v. Deloney
-
W. A. Gaines & Co. v. E. Whyte Grocery, Fruit & Wine Co.
...their recovery in this action. Bliss v. Pritchard, 67 Mo. 181; Landrum v. Bank, 63 Mo. 48; Burgess v. Railroad, 99 Mo. 496; McLaughlin v. Railway, 21 F. 574; Smith v. Adams, 6 Paige (N. Y.) 435; Amoskeag v. Garner, 55 Barb. 151; Coates v. Thread Co., 149 U.S. 562; Hathaway v. Noble, 55 N.H.......
-
Safety Car Heating & Lighting Co. v. Consolidated Car Heating Co.
...Co. v. Locke, 150 U.S. 193, 14 Sup.Ct. 78, 37 L.Ed. 1049; Richardson v. D. M. Osborne & Co., 93 F. 828, 36 C.C.A. 610; McLaughlin v. People's R. Co. (C.C.) 21 F. 574; Woodmanse & Hewitt Mfg. Co. v. Williams, 68 F. 15 C.C.A. 520; Meyrowitz Mfg. Co. v. Eccleston (C.C.) 98 F. 437; Starrett v. ......
-
Gillons v. Shell Co. of California
...nothing can call into activity a court of equity but `conscience, good faith, and reasonable diligence.' Cases cited. In McLaughlin v. Railway Co. C.C. 21 F. 574, Judge Brewer held a bill for the infringement of a patent, alleging the unauthorized use and construction of a patented inventio......