United States Bernardin v. Duell, 444
Citation | 172 U.S. 576,43 L.Ed. 559,19 S.Ct. 286 |
Decision Date | 23 January 1899 |
Docket Number | No. 444,444 |
Parties | UNITED STATES ex rel. BERNARDIN v. DUELL, Com'r of Patents |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
In an interference proceeding in the patent office between Bernardin and Northall, the commissioner, Seymour, decided in favor of Bernardin, whereupon Northall prosecuted an appeal to the court of appeals of the District of Columbia. That court awarded Northall priority, and reversed the commissioner's decision. 7 App. D. C. 452. Bernardin, notwithstanding, applied to the commissioner to issue the patent to him, and tendered the final fee; but the commissioner refused to do this, in view of the decision of the court of appeals, which had been duly certified to him. Bernardin then applied to the supreme court of the District of Columbia for a mandamus to compel the commissioner to issue the patent in accordance with his prior decision, on the ground that the statute providing for an appeal was unconstitutional, and the judgment of the court of appeals void for want of jurisdiction. The application was denied, and Bernardin appealed to the court of appeals, which affirmed the judgment. 10 App. D. C. 294.
Seymour resigned as commissioner, and was succeeded by Butterworth; and Bernardin recommenced his proceeding, which again went to judgment in the supreme court, and the court of appeals. 11 App. D. C. 91. The case was brought to this court, but abated in consequence of the death of Butterworth. 169 U. S. 600, 18 Sup. Ct. 441. Bernardin thereupon brought his action against Duell, Butterworth's successor; and judgment against him was again rendered in the District supreme court, that judgment affirmed by the court of appeals, and the cause brought here on writ of error.
The following sections of the Revised Statutes were referred to on the argument:
Section 780 of the Revised Statutes of the District of Columbia reads thus:
'Sec. 780. The supreme court, sitting in banc, shall have jurisdiction of and shall hear and determine all appeals from the decisions of the commissioner of patends, in accordance with the provisions of sections forty-nine hundred and eleven to section forty-nine hundred and fifteen, inclusive, of chapter one, title LX, of the Revised Statutes, 'Patents, Trade-Marks, and Copyrights."
Section 9 of the approved February 9, 1893 (27 Stat. 434, c. 74), is:
J. C. Dowell and Geo. C. Hazelton, for plaintiff in error.
Sol. Gen. Richards, for defendant in error.
J. M. Wilson, for Northall.
Mr. Chief Justice FULLER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.
The court of appeals for the District of Columbia adjudged that Northall was entitled to the patent. By section 8 of the act establishing that court (27 Stat. 434, c. 74), it is provided that any final judgment or decree thereof may be revised by this court on appeal or error in cases wherein the validity of a statute of the United States is drawn in question. The validity of the act of congress allowing an appeal to the court of appeals in interference cases was necessarily determined when that court went to judgment, yet no attempt was made to bring the case directly to this court, but the relator applied to the District supreme court to compel the commissioner to issue the patent in disregard of the judgment of the court of appeals to the contrary; and, the application having been denied, the court of appeals was called on to readjuicate the question of its own jurisdiction.
The ground of this unusual proceeding, by which the lower court was requested to compel action to be taken in defiance of the court above, and the latter court was called on to rejudge its own judgment, was that the decree of the court of appeals was utterly void, because of the unconstitutionality of the statute by which it was empowered to exercise jurisdiction.
Nothing is better settled than that the writ of mandamus will not ordin rily be granted, if there is another legal remedy, nor unless the duty sought to be enforced is clear and indisputable; and we think that, under the circumstances, the remedy by appeal existed, and that it is not to be conceded that it was the duty of the commissioner to disobey the decree because in his judgment the statute...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Williams v. United States
...may not bring within the cognizance of the courts of the United States, as it may deem proper.' See, also, United States v. Duell, 172 U.S. 576, 582, 589, 19 S.Ct. 286, 43 L.Ed. 559. Since all matters made cognizable by the Court of Claims are equally susceptible of legislative or executive......
-
Donoghue v. United States Hitz v. Same
...character are found in Butterworth v. (United States ex rel.) Hoe, 112 U.S. 50, 60, 5 S.Ct. 25, 28 L.Ed. 656, United States v. Duell, 172 U.S. 576, 19 S.Ct. 286, 43 L.Ed. 559, and Baldwin Co. v. Howard Co., 256 U.S. 35, 41 S.Ct. 405, 65 L.Ed. 816. Subject to the guaranties of personal liber......
-
U.S. v. Christian
...449 U.S. 33, 101 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980); Kerr, supra, 426 U.S., at 403, 96 S.Ct. at 2124; United States v. Duell, 172 U.S. 576, 582, 19 S.Ct. 286, 287, 43 L.Ed. 559 (1899); United States v. Cuthbertson, 651 F.2d 189 at 193. (3d Cir. The burden is on the petitioner, here the United......
-
Yeager v. Greene, 85-601.
...Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 384, 74 S.Ct. 145, 148, 98 L.Ed. 106 (1953) (quoting United States v. Duell, 172 U.S. 576, 585, 19 S.Ct. 286, 288, 43 L.Ed. 559 (1899)). However, it has been noted that "where a matter is committed to discretion it cannot be said that a liti......
-
Chapter §22.02 Inter Partes Review
...564 U.S. 462, 488 (2011)).[595] Oil States, 138 S. Ct. at 1373.[596] Oil States, 138 S. Ct. at 1373 (quoting United States v. Duell, 172 U.S. 576, 582–583 (1899)).[597] Oil States, 138 S. Ct. at 1373 (quoting Duell, 172 U.S. at 586).[598] Oil States, 138 S. Ct. at 1373 (quoting United State......
-
VESTED RIGHTS, "FRANCHISES," AND THE SEPARATION OF POWERS.
...Columbia acts as a branch or arm of the Patent Office, and not in a judicial capacity."). (543) United States ex rel. Bernardin v. Duell, 172 U.S. 576, 589 (1899) (asserting that back when Congress had authorized individual judges of the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia to hear ap......
-
Chapter §15.08 Collateral Estoppel Effect of Prior Claim Interpretation Decisions
...Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene's Energy Grp., LLC, 138 S. Ct. 1365, 1373 (2018) (Thomas, J.) (quoting United States v. Duell, 172 U.S. 576, 582–583 (1899) (quoting Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 18 How. 272, 284 (1856)) (emphasis added). "It has the key features......
-
Getting Public Rights Wrong: The Lost History of the Private Land Claims.
...(17 How.) 525,531 (1855). (330.) Id. at 533-34. (331.) See id:, see also infra note 403 and accompanying text; United States v. Duell, 172 U.S. 576, 581-82, 585-86, (1899) (rejecting an argument that the court of appeals could not review a decision by the patent (332.) Ritchie, 58 U.S. (17 ......