Perlman v. United States

Decision Date06 May 1918
Docket NumberNo. 752,752
Citation38 S.Ct. 417,62 L.Ed. 950,247 U.S. 7
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Appeal and error to review an order denying petition of Perlman to restrain and enjoin the United States attorney for the Southern district of New York from taking into his possession or custody certain exhibits which had been impounded and deposited by order of the district court for that district with the clerk of the court.

In support of the relief prayed Perlman alleges the following facts, which we state narratively: He is the inventor of a device known in the market as a demountable rim, its purpose being to mount and carry an inflated pneumatic tire upon a metallic rim, which contains locking devices for attachment to the wheels of automobiles and other vehicles.

He brought suit for infringement against the Standard Welding Company, and, issue being joined, there was a judgment for him against the company, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. (D. C.) 231 Fed. 453, 231 Fed. 734, 146 C. C. A. 18. At the trial of the cause certain exhibits hereinafter referred to were offered by him which were and are his personal property and have been continuously in his possession or in the possession of those who represent him.

Subsequently he, with others, formed a corporation known as the Perlman Rim Corporation, which, among other things, undertook to market the patented device.

n March, 1916, he assigned the letters patent to the corporation, but not the exhibits above mentioned.

In February, 1917, the corporation, being advised that the Firestone Tire & Rubber Company was infringing the device, brought suit against the company for infringement, which came up for trial before Judge Hand. After final submission of the case the plaintiff, the Perlman Rim Corporation, through its counsel, asked leave to discontinue the action and for its dismissal without prejudice. The motion was granted, but the condition was imposed that the evidence be perpetuated and the exhibits impounded in the custody of the clerk, to be kept under seal subject to the order of the court.1 The exhibits were part of those heretofore referred to and used on the trial before Judge Hunt.

July 17, 1917, Perlman ascertained from the attorney for the corporation that the attorney had been served with a copy of an order signed by Judge Hand, directing him, the attorney for the corporation, and the attorney for the Firestone Company to appear and show cause why the United States attorney should not have and be given possession of the exhibits as the United States attorney had instituted proceedings against Perlman which involved the question whether he had committed an offense against the United States. The attorney for the corporation also told Perlman that he had not opposed the motion and that the attorney for the Firestone Company had not appeared; that, therefore, the order would be entered as a matter of course.

The application of the United States attorney was based on an affidavit of one Harold Harper, an assistant to the United States attorney, which charged, among other things, that the exhibits were material and necessary in an investigation pending before The grand jury and for preparation for trial in case an indictment should be found.

The exhibits are his, Perlman's, personal property and the use of them by the grand jury and the United States attorney as contemplated would be in violation of his rights and unwarranted in law; they were impounded in a suit to which he was not a party, but a witness, and he had not consented thereto or been heard by counsel.

He prayed for an order upon all the parties concerned to show cause why an order should not be made directing the clerk to deliver to him, Perlman, the exhibits and that the United States attorney be restrained from using them, and that unless such stay be granted, his rights would be seriously invaded and he would be compelled to furnish evidence against himself in a criminal proceeding, all without due process of law.

A schedule of the exhibits is attached to the petition and shows them to be not only matters in writing, such as bills, letters and checks, but models of wheels, rim-carrying tires, and of other implements and tools, and the patent upon which the suit was brought.

Before the filing of the petition an order had been granted upon motion of the United States attorney directing the clerk to produce the exhibits before the grand jury. The order further directed that the United States attorney have access to the exhibits at all reasonable times and that if an indictment should be found against Perlman the United States attorney might have such temporary custody of the exhibits or any part thereof as might be necessary for the purpose, under such regulations as the clerk might make.

Upon the filing of Perlman's petition an order was granted restraining the use of the exhibits until the hearing of the petition. Subsequently, upon the hearing, and Perlman having withdrawn so much of his application as related to the return of the exhibits to him, the court, Judge Manton sitting, denied the relief prayed for against the use of the exhibits by the United States attorney or their presentation to the United States grand jury.

The order recited that it was made upon the order of Judge Hand, the petition of Perlman and the affidavit of Harper.

The affidavit gives some detail that Perlman's petition does not. It states that Perlman testified that he had been president of the Perlman Rim Corporation since its formation and further that he gave testimony in respect to the alleged invention which was the subject of the patent, and that in the course of his testimony he produced and offered in evidence on the part of the corporation the exhibits. And the affidavit states that the impounding of the exhibits was part of the decree in the suit against the Firestone Company and that Perlman was present at the time and during practically all of the proceedings of the trial and that the minutes of the court show no protest by him.

It further states that certain of the alleged perjuries committed by Perlman referred directly to the exhibits, as to the time and manner of their production or alteration; and that certain other statements alleged to have been perjured were made by him and supported by the exhibits. And further that in the course of his cross-examination Perlman gave certain evidence with regard to events in England in the year 1895 which did not directly concern the matter of invention but went to the credibility of the witness as such, and in respect to those statements an indictment had been found against Perlman by the grand jury attending the court for the July, 1917, term.

The sources of information of Harper as to the above matters not within his own knowledge were stated to be the official stenographic report of the trial, the records of the clerk's office, and statements made to him by persons who had been present in the court room during the trial and cognizant of the proceedings.

Mr. Louis Marshall, of New York City, for appellant and plaintiff in error.

Mr. Assistant Attorney General Fitts...

To continue reading

Request your trial
379 cases
  • State v. Tonn
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 16 Enero 1923
    ... ... Section 254a; 3 Wigmore on Evidence, Section 2183 ...          The ... United States Supreme Court expressed the opposite view in ... Boyd v. United States , 116 U.S. 616, 29 ... against him. This he may do, even under the Federal rule ... Perlman v. United States , 247 U.S. 7, 62 L.Ed. 950, ... 38 S.Ct. 417 ...          IV. It ... ...
  • Grand Jury Subpoena, Matter of
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 2 Enero 1992
    ...exception to the rule of nonappealability of interlocutory orders is known as the "Perlman exception." See Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7, 38 S.Ct. 417, 62 L.Ed. 950 (1918). The facts of Perlman may be summarized as follows. A company partly owned by Perlman had submitted papers and m......
  • In re Grand Jury
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • 11 Diciembre 2012 ABC Corp. argues nonetheless that it can appeal under an exception to the contempt rule established in Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7, 38 S.Ct. 417, 62 L.Ed. 950 (1918). Under Perlman , a privilege holder may immediately appeal an adverse disclosure order when the traditional c......
  • Couch v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 9 Enero 1973
    ...petitioner's contention that ownership of documents should determine the availability of the privilege.14 In Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7, 38 S.Ct. 417, 62 L.Ed. 950 (1918), the Court held the privilege unavailable to a party seeking to suppress the admission of incriminating docume......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
4 books & journal articles
  • Grand jury proceedings
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Federal Criminal Practice
    • 30 Abril 2022 avert the effects of the order. In re Grand Jury Subpoena , 190 F.3d 375, 382 (5th Cir. 1999) (citing Perlman v. United States , 247 U.S. 7, 12-13 (1918)). Cases applying this doctrine include: • In re Grand Jury Subpoena , 220 F.3d 406, 410 (5th Cir. 2000): Finding Perlman jurisdiction ......
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Discovery in Colorado (CBA) Chapter 10 Attorney-client Privilege
    • Invalid date
    ...discovery orders directing non-parties to disclose privileged communications may be appealed immediately. ➤ See Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7, 12-15 (1918). The justification for this exception lies in the lack of incentive of the directed party to risk contempt in protecting another......
  • "Special" delivery: where do national security letters fit into the Fourth Amendment?
    • United States
    • Fordham Urban Law Journal Vol. 33 No. 5, November 2006
    • 1 Noviembre 2006
    ...Annual Review of Criminal Procedure II. Preliminary Proceedings, Grand Jury, 91 GEO. L.J. 210, 220-21 (citing Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7, 12-13 (119.) See 18 U.S.C. [section] 2709 (2006) (stating requirements for issue of an NSL). (120.) Cf. In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 486 F.2d ......
  • Summaries of Selected Opinions
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 42-7, July 2013
    • Invalid date
    ...district court had erred, that fact would not affect jurisdiction. Defendant also invoked the Perlman doctrine. [Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7 (1918).] Under the Perlman doctrine, when a motion to quash is denied, the subpoenaed person may refuse to comply and be held in contempt, at......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT