MILLER-HAGEE, CO. fl..
(Oircuit OOU'I't, 8. D. Ohio,
February 29, 1888.)
COURTS-FEDERAL JURISDICTION-JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT-PATENTS FOR VENTIONS-AcTION FOR INFRINGEMENT.
N:either Rev. St. U. S. 711. vesting in the United States courts exclusive jurisdiction of patent ana copyright cases, nor section 699, providing for apto the sum in dispute, peals and writs of error in such cases, without was repealed by act Cong.March 3, 1875; .and neither cal). therefore be reo pealed by act March S. 1887, which only purports to amend the former act. Both acts merely refer to those cases where the state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction.
Where a bill shows on its face that defendant is not an inhabitant of the district wherein the suit is bronght, defenda'nt may assert his objection to beserved out of the district of his residence by demurrer as well as by motion to dismiss.
In Equity. On demurrer to bill., , JereF. Twohig and HowflO'/l &ma, for complainants. ParkinaDn Parkinaon. for defendant. JACB;sqN, J. The complainants, citizens of Ohio and Pennsylvania, as the present owner and licensees ofletters patent No. 281,101, for certain new and useful improvements in boqk bindinf!;, issued February 26, 1883, to Andrew J. Magee, instituted this suit. September 3, 1887, against the defendant, a citizen and resident of Covington, Ky., to restrain his use and infringement of said patent. Service of process was had upon the delEmdant atOincinnati, Ohio. In obedience to said pro-cess, defendnnt has appeared, and demurred to the jurisdiction of this court "foj.' thatitappears pysaid bill of complaint that this defendant is not an inhabitant of the district wherein this suit is brought, and for that it not appear by said bill of complaint that the amount in troversy is sufficient to give jurisdiction to this court." The bill makes no allegatil;m or averment as to the amount involved in the controversy; and the. second Kround of demurrer aRsumes that, under the act of March 3, 1887 ,it must appear upon the face of the bill, in patent cases as in other civil snits, that the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costa, the sum of $2,000, in order for this court to entertain jurisdiction. This position is not well taken. Under the statutes of the United jurisdiction of all cases arising unStates the cir<;mit court der the patent-right laws of the United States, without reference to the amount involved. The act of 1875 in no way changed or affected the jurisdiction. The act of March 3, 1887, is only amendatory of the act of March 3, 1875, and in respect to patent cases, leaves the jurisdiction of this court just ,as it stood prior to and after the passage of the act of 1875, so far as the amount involved is concerned.. Before the act of 1875, this court hlld jurisdiction in patent suits without reference to the amount involved. That act did not change this jurisdiction or introduce any requirement as to amount in dispute in patent cases; ,and in v.34F.no.6-28
amending the act of 1875, no change in this respect is made by the act of March 3, 188!7'.'i"'Thei court is of .the opiniontbat i1l!1is ground of demurrer is not wall taken and should be overruled. viz.,'''that itappell:rsbysaid bill of The other ground <lomplaint that the.de:fendantis not.aJ;l. the district wherein this suit is brought," presents a valid objection to the suit against the defendant in thia'Mstrict. It is not' intended, in holding this 9bjection of1887, exercise valid to decide that 'this court, cannot, under the any jurisdiction incases like the present, When the defendant, is not an inbabitalltoft,he This court is that the act confers only a personitl upon inciined to the thedefendantin such c,ases, which he may waivejbut,without deciding it is l!IPffl.gient to <.l,Oes 'in the present the facts appearing upon the face of't!:l:e bin defendant may assert his objection to being served out of the district whereof he is an inhabitant by demurrer as well as by ,plea or motion to, dismiss. This , practice was sanctioned. 9Y the in tpe case f?fiReinstadler v.Reeves, 33 Fed. Rep. 308; 1'888,)whiehinvolved'the same question ' raised by the present demurrer. " The conclusion of the court is that the first ground of demurrer is well taken, iilrtd should :be:austained.· It isaecordingly so:ordered, a.nd the complainarits' ,bill 'win, be 'dismissed' with costs, but without prejudice to the right'to sue in the/proper district·
.ADDITiONAJ,., ,OPJ,..'UON. ::
(May: 7, 1888.)
whether the jurisdiction 'of this eollrtis defeateubecause the matter in dil\pute'does not exceed,exc!l.lSive of interes,t' and' :costs, ,the sum or value 0f$2,OOO, has, at the -request of counsel for the defendant, been reconsidered by the court, and;as' theresult'o( that 're-examination the court is confirmed in the conclusion heretofore announced ,: that the $2',000 limitation placed upon the jurisdictidIl' of the court':byand under the act of March B, 1887, does not apply to patent cases or'to suits ment ofpliterlts. , The' exClusive jurisdiction vested'in the courts of the laws United States iii CRsesarising under the of the United States, Rev. St.,) and the allowance of writs of error and' appeals il'l"such cases,without regard to 'the sum or value in dispute, (sectiori 699;Uev. St.,}were notrepealed,either expressly or by implication, by the I1ctof March 3,1875. ' 'The act of March ,3, 1'887. onlyprirports toamehdthe . act Of March 3, 1'875, fair dt proper conStruction can: it be held tbrepealtheforegoipg statUtory pro.. visions t6 the exClusive jUrisdiction ofthii3 l cfJurtin cRsesarising under patent laws without referehce to the anibunt, 8:6t8 of 1875 and 1887 both refer to'that class of cases in which the federal'cdurts hav'e'cOnctirreMjurisdiction wifhstatecbutts. They do not ltpply td cases arising and copyright laws, as to which of the United States, with" ekClrisivejurisdictioh'is Vested'in'tne
The question presented by one groundofdemurrerinthis case,viz.,
out reference totheamouuHnvolved. 'The court'accordingly adheres to its f6rmerruling do this question, 'and overrules fuil! ground of demurrer with costs.
WREN 'l1· .ANNIN
D. New York. March 12, 1888.)
CouxTS-FEDERAL,JUXISDICTIOl'l'-:-PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-ENFORCING AsSIGNMENT· ., '. ,
An action where the relief demanded is an assignment of letters patent. and damag:es..,andwhere all tb.e p.arties are res.idents Sl'm.e state, does not lie within the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Following 'l'rading 00. v. GlaenZ61', 'SO Fed. Rep. 887. .
In Equity. On demurter. '.' .· .' (lomplairiantWren, the patentee of 'an improvement in metallio wheelbarrows, aasigned his letters patent to.defendant, Annin, in con$ide:ration of one dollar and an agreement by Annin to money for the the wheelbarrows. The bill in this suit alleged that Annin had failed to pay the consideration, and had assigned the letters patent to the defendant, the National Barrow & Truck Company, in fraud of complainant, and therefore prayed for a decree compelling deftmdants to reassign the letters patent to complainant, and for damages. The bill wasdem.urred to Ollth'e ground that as nli the parties were residents of the state ()f New York, the jurisdiction of this aetion lay with the New York Rtate courts, and this court had no jurisdiction. I. S. ea.Uirl, for complainant. John L. Hill, for defendants. . '., .. LACOMBE; J.. I am unl,lble to distinguish this from Hartell v. U.. S. 547 ,and. Trading Co. v. Glaenwr,30 Fed. Rep. 387. Demurrer i!i sustained·
. GOTTLIEB 11. THATCREB.
(Circuit OotJ,rt. D. Oolorado.
TO PRIOB GRAN'
JUDGMliNT-OI'ERATION AND EFFECT-CONCLUSIVENESS TEES. .
As against a prior grantee and purcbaser at an .execution sale nnder a precedingjudgment. a subsequent judgment against the grantor and debtor is Dot conclusive, either as·tei the amount 'of the debt, or as to the circumstances e.nd character of the transaction out ofwhieh the indebtedness arose. and where made defendant to a bill by, tQe ,holder of such judgment tq set the cOllveyance aside as ill fravd of debtors. and to subject the land.s.lich prior grantee ,and purchaser may show that the debt for which the judgment was
lReportellJby Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.,