Pennsylvania Globe Gaslight Co. v. Globe Gaslight Co.
| Decision Date | 03 July 1902 |
| Docket Number | 1,507. |
| Citation | 121 F. 1015 |
| Parties | PENNSYLVANIA GLOBE GASLIGHT CO. v. GLOBE GASLIGHT CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
W. B. H. Dowse and John R. Bennett, for complainant.
Richardson, Herrick & Neave, for defendant.
The general rule that a complainant has the right to dismiss his bill at any time before hearing is too firmly established to require any citation of authority. It is equally well settled that the annoyance to the defendant of a second litigation is no ground for refusing to dismiss the bill. The only question which can arise in any given case is whether the complainant comes within the exceptions to the rule. These exceptions may be briefly stated: First, where the dismissal would deprive the defendant of some substantial right which has accrued to him since the suit was commenced; second, where the defendant prays for, or is entitled to, some affirmative relief, as, for example, where there is a cross-bill.
The case at bar does not fall within either of these exceptions. The bill is the ordinary one for infringement of a patent. The evidence is closed, the record printed, the case put upon the calendar, and, by order of the court, stands for hearing. During the progress of the suit the defendant has acquired no substantial right, and it asks for no affirmative relief. So far as appears, the defendant is in no way prejudiced by the dismissal of this suit further than his liability to a second suit for the same cause of action.
The contention of the defendant is that the general rule giving the right to complainant to dismiss his bill at any time before hearing means 'at any time before setting down for hearing. ' Whatever may have been the practice in England, this interpretation of the rule has not been adopted by the federal courts. The form of the order, in my opinion, is of little consequence, so long as it appears that the dismissal was not on the merits. The order, 'Upon complainant's motion, the bill stands dismissed on payment of costs,' is perhaps more usual, and would seem to be sufficient under the federal practice; but, in order to avoid any possible question as to its effect, it is a safe practice to add the words 'without prejudice.'
Motion granted.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United Motors Service v. Tropic-Aire
...he may insist that the cause proceed to a decree." The exceptions to the rule are clearly stated in Pennsylvania Globe Gaslight Co. v. Globe Gaslight Co. (C. C.) 121 F. 1015, 1016, as follows: "First, where the dismissal would deprive the defendant of some substantial right which has accrue......
-
Young v. J. Samuels & Bro., Inc.
... ... v. Keith (C.C.) 150 F. 606; ... Pennsylvania Globe Gaslight Co. v. Globe Gaslight Co ... (C.C.) 121 F ... ...
-
Title Guaranty & Sur Co. of Scranton, Pa. v. Guernsey
... ... v. So. Railway (C.C.) 107 F. 213; Pennsylvania, ... etc., Co. v. Globe, etc., Co. (C.C.) 121 F. 1015; ... ...
-
Greenville Banking & Trust Co. v. Selcow
...of a sound discretion may deny the application. Detroit v. Detroit City Railway Co. (C. C.) 55 F. 569; Pennsylvania Globe Gaslight Co. v. Globe Gaslight Co. (C. C.) 121 F. 1015; Morton Trust Co. v. Keith (C. C.) 150 F. 606; Cowham v. McNider (D. C.) 261 F. 714; Goldstein v. Philadelphia & R......