William Crozier v. Fried Krupp Aktiengesellschaft, No. 8

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtWhite
Citation224 U.S. 290,32 S.Ct. 488,56 L.Ed. 771
PartiesWILLIAM CROZIER, Petitioner, v. FRIED. KRUPP AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT
Decision Date08 April 1912
Docket NumberNo. 8

224 U.S. 290
32 S.Ct. 488
56 L.Ed. 771
WILLIAM CROZIER, Petitioner,

v.

FRIED. KRUPP AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT.

No. 8.
Argued April 20, 1911.
Decided April 8, 1912.

Page 291

Attorney General Wickersham and Mr. Stuart McNamara, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, for petitioner.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 291-295 intentionally omitted]

Page 295

Mr. William A. Jenner for respondent.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 295-297 intentionally omitted]

Page 297

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:

The defendant, a corporation organized under the laws of the German Empire, commenced this suit on June 8, 1907, in the supreme court of the District of Columbia. Relief was sought because of alleged infringements of three described letters patent of the United States, originally issued in the name of Fried. Krupp and assigned to the corporation. Two of the patents, numbered 722,724 and 722,725, were granted in 1903, and the third, issued in 1905, was numbered 791,347. The patents related to improvements in guns and gun carriages. The petitioner here, William Crozier, was named as sole defendant in the bill.

After full averments as to the issue of the patents and the assignments by which the plaintiff had become the owner thereof, it was charged that the defendant Crozier, well knowing of the existence of the patents, 'in violation and infringement of said letters patent and of the exclusive rights granted and secured under said letters patent . . . since the 17th day of March,

Page 298

1903, and within the period of six (6) years prior to the filing of this bill of complaint, in the city of Bridgeport, state of Connecticut, and in the Watervliet Arsenal in the state of New York, and in the Rock Island Arsenal in the state of Illinois, . . . and elsewhere in the United States,' has 'made and used, or caused to be made and used, is now making and causing to be made and used, and threatens and intends to continue to make or cause to be made, and to use and cause to be used,' guns and recoil-brake apparatus and guns and gun carriages embodying the inventions owned by the complainant, in violation of the rights secured by the patents.

The prayer was for a preliminary and a permanent writ enjoining the defendant, 'his agents and employees, from making or using or causing to be made or used any guns or gun carriages or other devices which shall contain or employ the inventions or any of the inventions covered and secured by said letters patent or any of said letters patent.' There was also a prayer that the defendant 'may be compelled to account for and pay over to your orator all the profits which the defendant has or had derived from any making or using of any gun or any specimen or device covered and secured by said letters patent or any of said letters patent, and that also the defendant be decreed to pay all damages which your orator has incurred or shall incur upon account of defendant's infringement of any of said letters patent, with such increase thereof as shall be meet. . . . '

A stipulation was filed in the cause, in which, while expressly reserving the right of the defendant 'to demur or otherwise plead to the bill of complaint, because of lack of jurisdiction on any ground,' it was agreed as follows:

'The complainant stipulates that no pecuniary benefit has accrued to the defendant, William Crozier, by reason of the acts set forth in the bill, and complainant waives any claim against said defendant for an accounting of the

Page 299

profits or for damages, if any, arising out of or suffered by the complainant by reason of the acts and things set forth in the bill. Defendant stipulates and agrees that the government of the United States of America and the Ordnance Department of said government have manufactured, are now manufacturing, and intend to continue the manufacture and use, or to cause to be manufactured for their use, field guns and carriages made after the so-called 'Model of 1902' referred to in the bill of complaint, the claim or claims of complainant being in nowise admitted; that the defendant, William Crozier, sued in this suit, is an officer in the United States Army and Chief of the Ordnance of the United States Army, and is the officer in the service of the United States who directs and is in charge of such manufacture of said field guns and carriages for the United States. The complainant concedes that the defendant, William Crozier, is such officer. The defendant further stipulates and agrees that the complainant is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Empire of Germany and a citizen of said Empire and a subject of the Emperor of Germany.

'Further, complainant desires to amend its bill in certain particulars, and the defendant desires to consent thereto. It is therefore stipulated that the bill of complaint herein be amended to read as follows: In paragraph 32 of said bill shall be eliminated and expunged the words 'a preliminary and also,' and also the words 'or using' and the words 'or used,' so that the said 32d paragraph of said bill of complaint shall, when so amended, read as follows:

"And your orator therefore prays your honors to grant unto your orator a permanent writ of injunction issuing out of and under the seal of this honorable court, directed to the said defendant, William Crozier, and strictly enjoining him, his agents and employees, from making or causing to be made any guns or gun carriages or other

Page 300

devices which shall contain or employ the inventions or any of the inventions covered and secured by said letters patent or any of said letters patent.'

'Paragraph 33 of said bill of complaint shall be amended so as to eliminate and expunge from said paragraph the following words:

"by a decree of this court may be compelled to account for and pay over to your orator all the profits which the defendant has or had derived from any making or using of any gun or any specimen or device covered and secured by said letters patent or any of said letters patent, and that also the defendant be decreed to pay all damages which your orator has incurred or shall incur upon account of defendant's infringement of any of such letters patent, with such increase thereof as shall seem meet, and that also the defendant.'

'So that the paragraph marked 33, when so amended, shall read as follows:

"And your orator further prays that the defendant be decreed to pay the costs of this suit, and that your orator may have such other and further relief as the equity of the cause or the statutes of the United States may require and to this court may seem just."

The defendant demurred to the amended bill on various grounds, all of which, in substance, challenged the jurisdiction of the court over the cause on the ground that the suit was really against the United States.

The demurrer was sustained and the bill dismissed. The court of appeals reversed, and remanded the cause for further proceedings not inconsistent with its opinion. 32 App. D. C. 1, L.R.A.(N.S.) ——, 15 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 1108.

The court held that there was a broad distinction between interfering by injunction with the use by the United States of its property and the granting of a writ of injunction for the purpose of preventing the wrongful taking of private property, even although the individual

Page 301

who was enjoined from such taking was an officer of the government, and although the purpose of the proposed taking was to appropriate the private property when taken to a governmental purpose. The cases of Belknap v. Schild, 161 U. S. 10, 40 L. ed. 599, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep....

To continue reading

Request your trial
118 practice notes
  • Univ. of Hous. Sys. v. Jim Olive Photography, NO. 01-18-00534-CV
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • June 11, 2019
    ...Wm. Cramp , 246 U.S. at 41, 38 S.Ct. 271 ). Zoltek further noted that in Wm. Cramp and Crozier v. Fried. Krupp Aktiengesellschaft , 224 U.S. 290, 304, 32 S.Ct. 488, 56 L.Ed. 771 (1912), the Supreme Court "acknowledged Congressional recognition that the Court of Claims lacked Tucker Act juri......
  • De Rodulfa v. United States, No. 22947
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • March 24, 1972
    ...Union Tel. Co. v. Louisville & N. R. R. Co., 258 U.S. 13, 18, 22, 42 S. Ct. 258, 66 L.Ed. 437 (1922); Crozier v. Fried Krupp, etc., 224 U.S. 290, 302-309, 32 S.Ct. 488, 56 L.Ed. 771 (1911); Sherman v. Grinnell, 123 U.S. 679, 8 S.Ct. 260, 31 L.Ed. 278 (1887); Railroad Co. v. Grant, 98 U.S. 3......
  • City of Dallas v. Vsc Llc, No. 08–0265.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • September 30, 2011
    ...such a proceeding will be the same as that which he” is entitled to under the constitution); Crozier v. Fried. Krupp Aktiengesellschaft, 224 U.S. 290, 306–07, 32 S.Ct. 488, 56 L.Ed. 771 (1912) (rejecting a constitutional challenge on the basis of the Takings Clause because the relevant stat......
  • United States v. Meyer, No. 7148
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • July 23, 1940
    ...of such authorized purpose. Hurley v. Kincaid, 285 U.S. 95, 104, 52 S.Ct. 267, 76 L.Ed. 637; Crozier v. Fried. Krupp Aktiengesellschaft, 224 U.S. 290, 306, 32 S.Ct. 488, 56 L.Ed. 771; Joslin v. City of Providence, 262 U.S. 668, 678, 43 S.Ct. 684, 67 L.Ed. 1167; Hays v. Port of Seattle, 251 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
114 cases
  • Univ. of Hous. Sys. v. Jim Olive Photography, NO. 01-18-00534-CV
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • June 11, 2019
    ...Wm. Cramp , 246 U.S. at 41, 38 S.Ct. 271 ). Zoltek further noted that in Wm. Cramp and Crozier v. Fried. Krupp Aktiengesellschaft , 224 U.S. 290, 304, 32 S.Ct. 488, 56 L.Ed. 771 (1912), the Supreme Court "acknowledged Congressional recognition that the Court of Claims lacked Tucker Act juri......
  • De Rodulfa v. United States, No. 22947
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • March 24, 1972
    ...Union Tel. Co. v. Louisville & N. R. R. Co., 258 U.S. 13, 18, 22, 42 S. Ct. 258, 66 L.Ed. 437 (1922); Crozier v. Fried Krupp, etc., 224 U.S. 290, 302-309, 32 S.Ct. 488, 56 L.Ed. 771 (1911); Sherman v. Grinnell, 123 U.S. 679, 8 S.Ct. 260, 31 L.Ed. 278 (1887); Railroad Co. v. Grant, 98 U.S. 3......
  • City of Dallas v. Vsc Llc, No. 08–0265.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • September 30, 2011
    ...such a proceeding will be the same as that which he” is entitled to under the constitution); Crozier v. Fried. Krupp Aktiengesellschaft, 224 U.S. 290, 306–07, 32 S.Ct. 488, 56 L.Ed. 771 (1912) (rejecting a constitutional challenge on the basis of the Takings Clause because the relevant stat......
  • United States v. Meyer, No. 7148
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • July 23, 1940
    ...of such authorized purpose. Hurley v. Kincaid, 285 U.S. 95, 104, 52 S.Ct. 267, 76 L.Ed. 637; Crozier v. Fried. Krupp Aktiengesellschaft, 224 U.S. 290, 306, 32 S.Ct. 488, 56 L.Ed. 771; Joslin v. City of Providence, 262 U.S. 668, 678, 43 S.Ct. 684, 67 L.Ed. 1167; Hays v. Port of Seattle, 251 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • One Crack and an 'Evisceration': The Current State of the DMCA's Safe Harbor
    • United States
    • Landslide Nbr. 10-1, September 2017
    • September 1, 2017
    ...Federal Circuit, and its body of case law prior to 1982 is binding precedent in the USCFC. 5. Crozier v. Fried. Krupp Aktiengesell-schaft, 224 U.S. 290, 304 (1912). 6. Id. 7. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 842 F.2d 1275, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“The patentee takes his patent fro......
  • Evolutionary Tales: Times of the Best and Worst
    • United States
    • Landslide Nbr. 10-1, September 2017
    • September 1, 2017
    ...Federal Circuit, and its body of case law prior to 1982 is binding precedent in the USCFC. 5. Crozier v. Fried. Krupp Aktiengesell-schaft, 224 U.S. 290, 304 (1912). 6. Id. 7. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 842 F.2d 1275, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“The patentee takes his patent fro......
  • Intellectual Property Suits in the United States Court of Federal Claims
    • United States
    • Landslide Nbr. 10-1, September 2017
    • September 1, 2017
    ...Federal Circuit, and its body of case law prior to 1982 is binding precedent in the USCFC. 5. Crozier v. Fried. Krupp Aktiengesell-schaft, 224 U.S. 290, 304 (1912). 6. Id. 7. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 842 F.2d 1275, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“The patentee takes his patent fro......

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