National Casket Co. v. Stolts
| Decision Date | 09 November 1909 |
| Docket Number | 62. |
| Parties | NATIONAL CASKET CO. v. STOLTS. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Charles H. Duell, Frederick P. Warfield, and Holland S. Duell, for appellant.
Arthur v. Briesen and Hans v. Briesen, for appellee.
Before LACOMBE, COXE, and WARD, Circuit Judges.
As the case is now before us upon demurrer we can only consider the bill, the demurrer and the original and reissued patents profert of both being made by the complainant. The defendant's argument proceeds upon the theory that the issue between the parties is res judicata. The third ground of demurrer alleges:
'That it appears from the bill of complaint that the issues raised in the present suit have been tried and disposed of by this court and that said prior adjudications constitute res judicata of all the issues of the present suit.'
We are unable to find such an averment in the bill. It is true that it alleges that for seven years prior to November, 1907 there was almost constant litigation between the parties and that at the date last mentioned the complainant was first informed by this court that the original patent was inoperative and void for failing to claim the invention with the requisite certainty and accuracy, and for the further reason that the inventor claimed more than he had a right to claim. This falls far short of an averment or admission that the issues presented by the bill have been decided adversely to the complainant. The records in the former litigations are not before us and cannot be introduced upon the issue presented by the bill and demurrer. The demurrer admits what the bill alleges but the bill does not allege that the original patent was held invalid because of lack of patentability.
The courts may, of course, in considering a demurrer, take judicial notice of matters within the common knowledge of the people, but we have grave doubt whether we are justified in considering the testimony and exhibits produced before us at an argument which took place two years ago. Even if we were permitted to consider face-plates for burial caskets as matters of common knowledge, we are not sufficiently familiar with their details to justify us in considering the art prior to Hamilton's application, in the absence of exhibits and testimony identifying and explaining them.
The evidence of the witness who testified to a prior use in the suit on the original...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex inf. Wilkerson ex rel. City of Sikeston v. Missouri Utilities Co.
...on the face of the pleadings. 34 C. J., sec. 1494, p. 1058; Lemon v. Garden of Eden Drain. Dist., 310 Mo. 171, 275 S.W. 44; Natl. Casket Co. v. Stoltz, 174 F. 413; Givens v. Thompson, 110 Mo. 432; Kilpatrick Roberts, 278 Mo. 257; Donnell v. Wright, 147 Mo. 647; Spratt v. Early, 199 Mo. 501;......
-
Becker Steel Co. of America v. Cummings
...the notice does not extend to facts of evidentiary character alleged in papers filed by litigants in prior proceedings. National Casket Co. v. Stolts (C.C.A.2) 174 F. 413. It is unnecessary, therefore, to consider whether the alleged receivership should be given extraterritorial 4. The fina......
-
Suren v. Oceanic SS Co.
...then." United States v. Oregon Lumber Co., supra, 260 U.S. 290, at page 297, 43 S.Ct. 100, 102, 67 L.Ed. 261. 1 National Casket Co. v. Stolts (C.C. A.2) 174 F. 413; Rose v. Hawley, 133 N.Y. 315, 31 N.E. 236; Samples v. United Fuel Gas Co., 100 W.Va. 441, 130 S. E. 670, 2 Hewitt v. Great Wes......
-
Frank v. Western Electric Co.
...(C. C.) 36 F. 554. This rule obtains in this circuit. Bayley & Sons, Inc., v. Blumberg et al. (C. C. A.) 254 F. 696; National Casket Co. v. Stolts (C. C. A.) 174 F. 413; Lyons v. Drucker et al. (C. C. A.) 106 F. 416; Beer v. Walbridge et al. (C. C. A.) 100 F. 467; Blessing v. Trageser Steam......