National Cash-Register Co. v. Leland
| Decision Date | 24 November 1896 |
| Docket Number | 474,473,476.,475, |
| Citation | 77 F. 242 |
| Parties | NATIONAL CASH-REGISTER CO. v. LELAND et al. (four cases). SAME v. WRIGHT et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Russell & Russell, for plaintiff.
Fish Richardson & Storrow, for defendants.
We will assume, for the purposes of these cases, that the statutory patent action on the case for damages for infringement of patent rights, under section 4919 of the Revised Statutes, is to be treated as the common-law action of case; and the question presented arises upon the plaintiff's motion for default, grounded upon the defendants' failure to answer interrogatories, filed by the plaintiff against the defendants in accordance with the provisions of section 49 of the practice act of Massachusetts. It is provided by section 861 of the Revised Statutes of the United States that 'the mode of proof in the trial of actions at common law shall be by oral testimony and examination of witnesses in open court, shall be by oral testimony and examination of witnesses in open court, except as hereinafter provided' and it is conceded in the case at bar that adverse parties living within 100 miles of the place of trial, not bound on a voyage to sea, or about to go out of the United States, or out of the district, and to a greater distance than 100 miles from the place of trial, and who are neither ancient nor infirm, are not witnesses within the provisos following section 861 of the Revised Statutes, and that the matter sought by the interrogatories would not be testimony within the meaning of section 861. Ex parte Fisk, 113 U.S. 713, 5 Sup.Ct. 724.
The plaintiff, however, claims that the mode of proof in trials at law in the federal courts was enlarged by the act of congress of March 9, 1892 (2 Supp.Rev.St.p. 4), and that depositions may now be taken and become proofs in the federal courts, and that interrogatories may be filed, to be answered on oath by the adverse party, and become proofs in accordance with the provisions of the practice act governing the practice in the state courts of Massachusetts. In our view the statute of 1892 does not enlarge the instances in which depositions may be taken or in which answers may be obtained upon interrogatories for use as proofs in the federal courts. It was only intended to simplify the practice of taking depositions by providing that the mode of taking in instances authorized by the federal laws might conform to the mode prescribed by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
EH Rohde Leather Co. v. Duncan & Sons
...35 L. Ed. 734; Hanks Dental Ass'n v. International Tooth Crown Co., 194 U. S. 303, 24 S. Ct. 700, 48 L. Ed. 989; National Cash Register Co. v. Leland (C. C.) 77 F. 242; National Cash Register Co. v. Leland, 94 F. 502, 37 C. C. A. 372; Pierce v. Union Pac. Ry. Co. (C. C.) 47 F. 709; Salt Lak......
-
Zych v. American Car & Foundry Co.
... ... which depositions for use in the federal courts may be taken ... National cash Register Co. v. Leland, 37 C.C.A. 372, ... 94 F. 502; Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Wilder, 35 ... ...
-
Keene v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.
... ... 728; Ex ... parte Fisk, 113 U.S. 713, 5 Sup.Ct. 724, 28 L.Ed. 1117; ... Nat'l Cash Register Co. v. Leland (C.C.) 77 F ... The ... motion to strike is based upon the grounds that ... ...
-
Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Wilder
...the act of March 9, 1892, applies only to the mode of taking depositions. He quoted, with approval, Shellabarger v. Oliver and Register Co. v. Leland, supra, and said that it would unfortunate if the act of March 9, 1892, had been differently construed. In Whitford v. Clark Co., 119 U.S. 52......