Rubber Company v. Goodyear

• Decision Date: 01 December 1867
• Citation: 6 Wall. 153,73 U.S. 153,18 L.Ed. 762
• Parties: RUBBER COMPANY v. GOODYEAR
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

73 U.S. 153

18 L.Ed. 762

6 Wall. 153

RUBBER COMPANY v. GOODYEAR.

December Term, 1867

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island. On motions.

Two motions were made in this cause. The first by the appellees, to dismiss the appeal, the other by the appellants to reduce the amount of the bond given on appeal. This had been required in double the amount of the decree; one for $310,752.72.

The first motion was founded on the allegation that the final decree of the Circuit Court was entered on the 28th of November, 1866, while the appeal was taken to the December Term, 1867, of this court. And if the decree was, in fact, entered on the day alleged, it was obvious that the appeal should have been taken to the next term of this court, which commenced on the first Monday that is to say, on the 3d day of December, 1866, and that the appeal actually taken would have to be dismissed as not authorized by law.

The important question then was, on what day the decree of the Circuit Court was actually made.

It appeared from the return of the clerk of that court to a certiorari issued from this court, that on the 28th day of November, 1866, the following order was entered on the minutebook:

'1. In the cause in equity, Goodyear, Executor, et al. v. Providence Rubber Company. ORDERED, That the exceptions of the complainants to the master's report be, and the same are hereby, overruled.

'2. That the several exceptions of the respondents to the master's report be, and the same are hereby, overruled.

'3. That the report of the master in the case be, and the same is hereby, confirmed.

'4. That the profits made by the respondents, in violation of the rights of the complainants, under the patents in this case, are the sum of $310,757.72.

'5. That the complainants do recover of the respondents in this case the sum of $310,757.72 and costs, taxed at _____.

'Respon ents enter an appeal in open court. If appeal is to act as a supersedeas, a bond is to be filed in ten days in double the amount of the judgment. If not, execution to issue for judgment and costs, and a bond for costs on appeal to be filed in the sum of $500.

'The district judge to decide upon the sufficiency of the sureties.'

Afterwards, on the 5th of December, 1866, two days after the commencement of the December Term of this court, a final decree was filed and entered as follows:

'Final decree. November Term, 1866. This cause came on to be heard at this term, upon exceptions to the final report made therein by Charles Hart, Esq., one of the masters of this court, bearing date _____, and was argued by counsel, and thereupon, upon consideration thereof, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed as follows.'

Then followed three clauses identical with the first three of the previous order; and the two concluding clauses in these words:

'Fourth. That the profits made by the respondents in violation of the rights of the complainants under the letters-patent number 1084, granted to Charles Goodyear, June 15, 1844, reissued December 25, 1849, extended June 14, 1858, and again reissued to Charles Goodyear, Jr., executor, November 20, 1860, in this case, are the sum of three hundred and ten thousand seven hundred and fifty-seven dollars and seventy-two cents.

'Fifth. That the complainants do recover of the respondents, the Providence Rubber Company, in this case, the sum of three hundred and ten thousand seven hundred and fifty-seven dollars and seventy-two cents, and costs, taxed at seven thousand four hundred and twenty-nine dollars and ninety-one cents.'

This decree was 'entered as of November 28, 1866,' and signed, 'J. R. BULLOCK, District Judge.'

Messrs. Curtis, Ackerman, and C. S. Bradley, in support of the first motion;1

Messrs. Cushing, Payne, and Parsons, in support of the second,

The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.

The final decree, filed and entered on the 5th of December, 1866, it will be seen, is for the most part in the very language of the order; but uses the introductory words appropriate to a decree, and describes particularly the patents in controversy, and ascertains the amount of costs taxed. It omits the explanatory directions of the order as to the bond to be given on appeal; but the entry of the decree is followed immediately by another entry stating that an appeal was prayed for by respondents in open court, and was allowed, upon filing a bond within ten days with sureties to the satisfaction of the district judge.

Upon these facts we cannot doubt that the entry of the 28th of November was intended as an order settling the terms of the...