National Button Works v. Wade
| Decision Date | 01 February 1896 |
| Citation | 72 F. 298 |
| Parties | NATIONAL BUTTON WORKS v. WADE. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Motion to Dismiss Bill for Want of Jurisdiction.
The complainant is a Pennsylvania corporation; defendant a citizen of New York, doing business in the Southern district, but a resident of the Eastern district, of that state. He was ‘ found‘ in the Southern district, and there served with process. The suit is for infringement of a patent.
W. P. Preble, Jr., for the motion.
Jerome Carty, opposed.
Subsequent to the passage of the act of 1887, and prior to the decision of the supreme court in Re Hohorst, 150 U.S. 659, 14 S.Ct. 221, applications such as this, when made upon like facts, were uniformly granted in patent causes in this circuit, and the decided preponderance of authority in other circuits approved such a disposition of them; the act of 1887 being construed as operating in restriction of jurisdiction. The opinion in the Hohorst Case has been held to apply to all patent causes by Judge Wheeler in Smith v. Manufacturing Co., 67 F. 801, and by Judge Townsend to apply only to such suits when brought against aliens. Union Switch & Signal Co. v. Hall Signal Co., 65 F. 625. See, also, opinion of Judge Colt in Donnelly v. Cordage Co., 66 F. 613. The latter construction commended itself to the judge now sitting, and has been followed in at least two cases, not reported. It is doubtful, however, whether the Hohorst Case can be thus distinguished in view of the later opinion of the supreme court in Re Keasbey & Mattison Co. (Dec. 16, 1895) 16 S.Ct. 273, where that court says that the Hohorst Case was ‘ a suit for infringement of a patent right, exclusive jurisdiction of which had been granted to the circuit courts of the United States by sections (of the Revised Statutes) re-enacting earlier acts of congress, and was, therefore, not affected by general provisions regulating the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States concurrent with that of the several states.‘ The motion to dismiss is therefore denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stonite Products Co v. Melvin Lloyd Co
...Accord, Donnelly v. United States Cordage Co., C.C., 66 F. 613. Contra, Smith v. Sargent Mfg. Co., C.C., 67 F. 801. 4 National Button Works v. Wade, C.C., 72 F. 298; Noonan v. Chester Park Athletic Club Co., C.C., 75 F. 334; Earl v. Southern Pac. Co., C.C., 75 F. 609; Westinghouse Air-Brake......
-
Lewis Blind Stitch Co. v. Arbetter Felling Mach. Co.
... ... place of suit, by Elgin National Watch Co. v. Illinois ... Watch Case Co., 179 U.S. 665, 21 Sup.Ct. 270, ... v. American Tobacco Co. (C.C.) 178 F. 117; Button ... Works v. Wade (C.C.) 72 F. 298; Noonan v. Chester ... Park Co ... ...
-
Bowers v. Atlantic, G. & P. Co.
...to all infringement suits, the contrary doctrine was followed thereafter in this district in at least two unreported cases. Button Works v. Wade (C.C.) 72 F. 298. was the situation when, in December, 1895, the case of In re Keasbey & Mattison Co., 160 U.S. 221, 16 Sup.Ct. 273, 40 L.Ed. 402,......
-
Earl v. Southern Pac. Co.
...reasons upon which the motion of the Southern Pacific Company to dismiss has been denied are applicable to the defendant Graham. Button Works v. Wade, supra. We now to the question whether, on the showing made upon the order to show cause, the complainant is entitled to a preliminary injunc......