Van Choate v. General Electric Co.

Decision Date13 March 1917
Docket Number7.
Citation245 F. 120
PartiesVAN CHOATE v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

S. A Fuller, W. E. Bowden, Linville H. Wardwell, and Nason &amp Proctor, all of Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.

Robert T. Herrick, for defendant.

MORTON District Judge.

This is an action of tort to recover damages for infringement of the plaintiff's patent, 'together with such additional amount, not exceeding in the whole three times the amount of such actual damage, as to this honorable court may seem meet and just under the circumstances. ' It is brought under Rev. St. Sec. 4919 (Comp. St. 1916, Sec. 9464), and is an 'action on the case' within that statute.

Several motions were made to amend the declaration. One of them was heard and disallowed by Judge Lowell on February 26, 1907. No action appears to have been taken on the others. The case stands on the original declaration, filed on July 22, 1903 and on the original answer, filed December 26, 1907, which begins with a plea of not guilty. On March 29, 1910, the plaintiff died. Georgiana C. Van Choate, representing herself to be his administratrix, has filed a suggestion of his death, and has moved for leave to appear and prosecute the action. The motion is resisted, upon the ground that the cause of action did not survive, and that the action abated on the death of the plaintiff.

There is no United States statute defining what causes of action survive. Rev. St. Sec. 955 (Comp. St. 1916, Sec. 1592) provides only that, 'in case the cause of action survives by law,' the representative of the deceased party way come in. What those causes are is left to be determined by state statutes when those are applicable, and by common law when they are not.

Where the cause of action arises under the common law or under the statute of a state, its survivorship is governed by the lex loci. Martin v. B. & O.R.R., 151 U.S. 673, 691, 14 Sup.Ct. 533, 38 L.Ed. 311; B. & O.R.R. Co. v. Joy, 173 U.S. 226, 19 Sup.Ct. 387, 43 L.Ed. 677. In causes of action which arise solely under the laws of the United States, survivorship is determined according to the principles of the common law. Schreiber v Sharpless, 110 U.S. 76, 3 Sup.Ct. 423, 28 L.Ed. 65. At common law, actions ex delicto did not survive, except in a few instances, in which the injured party had the right to waive the tort and sue in assumpsit. Patton v. Brady, Ex'x, 184 U.S. 608, 614, 22 Sup.Ct. 493, 46 L.Ed. 713; Phillips v. Homfray, 24 Ch.D. 439; U.S. v. Daniels, 6 How. 11, 12 L.Ed. 323. Actions for mere injuries not resulting in profit to the wrongdoer did not survive either his death or that of the injured party. Henshaw v. Miller, 17 How. 212, 219, 222, 15 L.Ed. 222. Penal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Stevenson v. Stoufer, 46736.
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 5 Abril 1946
    ...59, 67, 33 S.Ct. 192, 57 L.Ed. 417;Walsh v. New York, N. H. & Hartford R. Co., C.C., 173 F. 494;Van Choate v. General Electric Co., D.C., 245 F. 120; 1 C.J.S., Abatement and Revival, § 135, page 183; 25 C.J. 822. It follows that whether the action for damages created by the Sherman Act surv......
  • Barnes Coal Corp. v. Retail Coal Merchants Ass'n
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • 29 Mayo 1942
    ...Vreeland, 227 U.S. 59, 67, 33 S.Ct. 192, 57 L.Ed. 417; Walsh v. New York, N. H. & Hartford R. Co., C.C., 173 F. 494; Van Choate v. General Electric Co., D.C., 245 F. 120; 1 C.J.S., Abatement and Revival, § 135, p. 183; 25 C.J. 822. It follows that whether the action for damages created by t......
  • Stevenson v. Stoufer
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 8 Enero 1946
    ... ... 192, 57 L.Ed. 417; Walsh v. New ... York, N. H. & Hartford R. Co., C.C., 173 F. 494; Van Choate ... v. General Electric Co., D.C., 245 F. 120; 1 C.J.S., ... Abatement and Revival, § 135, page ... ...
  • Pierce v. Allen B. Du Mont Laboratories, Inc., 13279.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • 29 Noviembre 1961
    ...137 F.Supp. 659; Armstrong v. Emerson Radio & Phonograph Corp., S.D.N.Y. 1955, 132 F.Supp. 176. Contra Van Choate v. General Electric Co., D.C.D. Mass.1917, 245 F. 120. We come now to the merits of the controversy. Was the trial court correct in ruling patent '642 invalid for double patenti......
  • 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