Union Tool Co v. Wilson, No. 132

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtBRANDEIS
Citation66 L.Ed. 848,42 S.Ct. 427,259 U.S. 107
Decision Date15 May 1922
Docket NumberNo. 132
PartiesUNION TOOL CO. v. WILSON

259 U.S. 107
42 S.Ct. 427
66 L.Ed. 848
UNION TOOL CO.

v.

WILSON.

No. 132.
Argued March 1, 2, 1922.
Decided May 15, 1922.

Messrs.

Page 108

Frederick S. Lyon and A. V. Andrews, both of Los Angeles, Cal., Melville Church, of Washington, D. C., and William K. White, of San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner.

Messrs. G. Benton Wilson, of Los Angeles, Cal., and F. W. Clements, of Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Wilson sued the Union Tool Company in the federal court for the Southern district of California, Southern division, for infringement of a patent for underreamers. He obtained a decree for an injunction and an accounting (237 Fed. 847), which was affirmed by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (249 Fed. 736, 161 C. C. A. 646), and a petition for a writ of certiorari was denied by this court (248 U. S. 559, 39 Sup. Ct. 6, 63 L. Ed. 421). Thereafter a writ of injunction issued, which forbade the manufacture and sale, not only of infringing machines, but also of parts or elements that might be used in combination to effect infringement.

Page 109

Wilson claimed that there had been deliberate violation of the injunction, both by the sale of infringing machines and by the sale of spare parts, and he moved in the District Court that the company and certain of its officers be punished for contempt or otherwise dealt with for violating it. The District Court found that, since the service of the injunction, the company had sold infringing machines, held it guilty of contempt in so doing, ordered that the company pay to the clerk of the court $5,000 as a fine, and that out of this sum $2,500 be paid to Wilson 'as a reasonable portion of the expenses incurred' by him in the contempt proceeding, and further ordered that, if the fine were not paid within 20 days, Double, the company's president, be committed to jail, to be there confined until it should be paid. The District Court also found that the company had sold, after the service of the injunction, spare parts to be used with machines or devices sold by the company prior thereto, and that these were of such a nature that when used in combination they would effect an infringement. But the court concluded, for reasons to be stated, that the sale of such spare parts should not subject the company to a fine, and purged it of contempt in that respect, without prejudice to the right of Wilson to renew his application.

To have this judgment entered in the contempt proceeding reviewed by the Court of Appeals, the company and Double sued out a writ of error, and thereafter Wilson sued out a cross-writ of error. The two writs were considered and disposed of separately. On the original writ the judgment was modified by striking out all that related to Double, and it was reversed in so far as it 'directed that $2,500 be paid to the clerk of the court as a punishment of the corporation.' But in so far as the judgment directed payment to Wilson as compensation, it was affirmed. 262 Fed. 431. On the cross-writ, which was heard and decided later, the Court of Appeals

Page 110

overruled a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, held the company guilty of contempt in selling the spare parts, held that the District Court had abused its discretion in purging the company of this contempt, reversed, in that respect, the judgment, and remanded it, with directions to the District Court to impose such punishment as might seem proper. 265 Fed. 669. A motion of the company for leave to file a petition for mandamus to compel the Court of Appeals to vacate its judgment on the cross-writ of error and to dismiss the latter was denied by this court. 254 U. S. 608, 41 Sup. Ct. 12, 65 L. Ed. 436. But a petition for a writ of certiorari was granted to review the reversal of the judgment in so far as it purged petitioner of contempt in selling the spare parts. 254 U. S. 624, 41 Sup. Ct. 14, 65 L. Ed. 444. And it is that alone which is now here for review.

The contention that the Court of Appeals was without jurisdiction of the cross-writ of error is renewed here. It is argued that the judgment for contempt, so far as now sought to be reviewed, is remedial, not punitive; that being remedial, it can be reviewed only on appeal, and not on writ of error; that an appeal will not lie until after the final decree; and that no final decree had been entered, as the accounting was still in process. It is true that the part of the judgment for contempt now under review is remedial. But it does not follow that the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to review it on the cross-writ of error. The District Court entered a single order, part remedial, part punitive. Where a fine is imposed, partly as compensation to the complainant and partly as punishment, the criminal feature of the order is dominant and fixes its character for purposes of review. In re Merchants' Stock Co., Petitioner, 223 U. S. 639, 32 Sup. Ct. 339, 56 L. Ed. 584. If the company had...

To continue reading

Request your trial
113 practice notes
  • Discovision Associates v. Disc Mfg., Inc., Civil Action No. 95-21-SLR.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Delaware)
    • October 26, 1998
    ...N.V. Philips Gloeilampenfabriken ("Philips") in 1988. (D.I. 613 at 59-62) As support for its position, DMI cites Union Tool Co. v. Wilson, 259 U.S. 107, 113, 42 S.Ct. 427, 66 L.Ed. 848 (1922), for the proposition that once a patentee collects "full compensation" for the use of his invention......
  • Irving, In re, Nos. 740-741
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • April 12, 1979
    ...we conclude that it is an order of criminal contempt and therefore immediately appealable as a final order. See Union Tool Co. v. Wilson, 259 U.S. 107, 111, 42 S.Ct. 427, 66 L.Ed. 848 (1922); International Business Machines Corp. v. United States, 493 F.2d at 114. The chief characteristic o......
  • Perkins v. Endicott Johnson Corporation, No. 218.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • May 6, 1942
    ...and is punished for contempt, he may then maintain an interlocutory appeal. Alexander v. United States, supra; Union Tool Co. v. Wilson, 259 U.S. 107, 110, 111, 42 S.Ct. 427, 66 L.Ed. 848; Cogen v. United States, supra, 278 U.S. at page 224, 49 S.Ct. 118, 73 L.Ed. 275; Cobbledick v. United ......
  • Falstaff Brewing Corp. v. Miller Brewing Co., No. 81-4214
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • March 28, 1983
    ...of review. Nye v. United States, 313 U.S. 33, 42-43, 61 S.Ct. 810, 812-813, 85 L.Ed. 1172 (1941) (quoting Union Tool Co. v. Wilson, 259 U.S. 107, 110, 42 S.Ct. 427, 428, 66 L.Ed. 848 (1922). A contempt judgment is criminal when it requires the contemnor to pay to the government an unconditi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
113 cases
  • Discovision Associates v. Disc Mfg., Inc., Civil Action No. 95-21-SLR.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Delaware)
    • October 26, 1998
    ...N.V. Philips Gloeilampenfabriken ("Philips") in 1988. (D.I. 613 at 59-62) As support for its position, DMI cites Union Tool Co. v. Wilson, 259 U.S. 107, 113, 42 S.Ct. 427, 66 L.Ed. 848 (1922), for the proposition that once a patentee collects "full compensation" for the use of his invention......
  • Irving, In re, Nos. 740-741
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • April 12, 1979
    ...we conclude that it is an order of criminal contempt and therefore immediately appealable as a final order. See Union Tool Co. v. Wilson, 259 U.S. 107, 111, 42 S.Ct. 427, 66 L.Ed. 848 (1922); International Business Machines Corp. v. United States, 493 F.2d at 114. The chief characteristic o......
  • Perkins v. Endicott Johnson Corporation, No. 218.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • May 6, 1942
    ...and is punished for contempt, he may then maintain an interlocutory appeal. Alexander v. United States, supra; Union Tool Co. v. Wilson, 259 U.S. 107, 110, 111, 42 S.Ct. 427, 66 L.Ed. 848; Cogen v. United States, supra, 278 U.S. at page 224, 49 S.Ct. 118, 73 L.Ed. 275; Cobbledick v. United ......
  • Falstaff Brewing Corp. v. Miller Brewing Co., No. 81-4214
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • March 28, 1983
    ...of review. Nye v. United States, 313 U.S. 33, 42-43, 61 S.Ct. 810, 812-813, 85 L.Ed. 1172 (1941) (quoting Union Tool Co. v. Wilson, 259 U.S. 107, 110, 42 S.Ct. 427, 428, 66 L.Ed. 848 (1922). A contempt judgment is criminal when it requires the contemnor to pay to the government an unconditi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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