ARGUED AND DETERMINED
Itntes (!j;ircuit and listrid
SWAYNE 'V. BOYLSTON
March 22, 1888.)
(Oirouit (Jourt, E. D. N(fIJ) York.
RIlMOVAL OF CAUSES-CITIZENSHiP-AcTIONS AGAINST NON-RESIDENTS.
Under act U. B. March 3, 1887, § 1, that United States circuit courts shall have original cognizance of civil suits between citizens of different states. and no civil" suit sball be "brought against any person in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant; and section 2, authorizing the removal from state courts to United States circuit courts of any civil suits of which the circuit courts are given jurisdiction by the section,-a citizen of one state. sued in a state court of another state by a citIzen of the latter, has the right of removal to the United States circuit court.
On Motion to Remand to State Court. J. A. Shoudy, for plaintiff, cited:
Yuba 00. v. Mining 00.,32 Fed. Rep. 183; Telegraph 00. v. Brown, rd. 337; Fales v. Railway 00., rd. 673; (Javin v. Vance, 33 Fed. Rep. 84; RaW. l611 v.· Railroad 00., Id. 305; Nelson v. Hennessey, rd. 113.
L. W. Ola1'k, for defendant, cited:
Railroad Co. v. RailroadOQ., 33 Fed. Rep. 385; Dwyer v. Peshall, 32 Fed. Rep. 497; Fisk v. He1wrie, rd. 417; Judah v. Wire Co., Id. 561; Bourke v. Amison, rd. 710; Anderson v. Appleton,ld. 855; Weller v. Tobacco Co., Id. 860; Mining Co. v ..Markell, 33 Fed. Rep. 386; Reinstadler v. Reeves, rd. 308; Oovert v. Waldron, Id. 311; Loomis v.Ooal 00., rd. 353; Newgass v. New Orleans, rd. 196; Short v. Railway, Id. 114; Nelson v. Hennessey, Id. 113; Harold v. Mining (}o., Id. 529.
LACOMBE, J. The plaintiff is a resident and citizen of New York; the defendant a resident and citizen of Massachusetts. The action was begun in the supreme court of this state, and removed into this court by the defendant. Plaintiff now moves to remand it, upon the ground that, as the defendant is a non-resident, this court would have no jurisv.35F.no.l-l
diction of an action brought here in the first instance, and therefore could not take such jurisdiction by a removal. He relies upon the decision in Yuba Co. v. Mining Co., 32 Feq.Rep.)83. .That case was before this court in the Southern district, in BdUrke v;-Amison, ld. 710, and not followed. The motion in the latter case was for an order setting aside the service of process, and the opinion discusses the act of 1887 so far only as was necessary to a decision Of that Subsequently I upon the settlement of the order, the defendant asked for a dismissal, contending that the court had no jurisdiction. This was denied (orally) on the expressed ground that jurisdiction would be entertained if the defendant were served in district of New York, where the resided.' The whole sUBject has·been .elaborately considered in the decisions already rendered in this and otber circuits, which have been cited by the defendant on this argument. It seems unnecessary to add anything to what has been already written,both-because the subject has been fully discussed, and because it now appears that the act which the federal courts have been interpreting for the past 12 months. is not the act which passed both houses of congress, and received the president's signature. The act printed on the statute-book conforms to the enrollment, but the enrolled act, when compared with the original papers on file in the secretary's office, contains 25 mistakes in spelling, in punctuation, in chang- : ingand omitting words, and in the structure of the bill,-that is, by changing paragraphs. Congo Rec·.March 14, 1888, pp. 2102,2103.
BROOKLYN WATCH-CASE Co· .". LEACH!
(Oircuit Oourt, E. D. New York. April 16, 1888.)
FJmBBAL OoUBTB,-JtJRISDIOTION-PATENTS FOB INVENTIONS-INJUNCTION.
On applfcMion for an injunction to prevent defendant from assigning a patent for a certain improvement in machinery, held, that if complainant'scaaa were founded solely upon some contract or arrangement with defendant, it did not arise under the patent laws, an,d this court would have no jurisdiction. On the other hand, if his claim were based on Rev. St. U. S. § 4899, providing that the purchaser or licensee of a patentable device before the inventor applies for· a patent, shall not be liable for infringement, then the court, while having jurIsdiction, would refuse the application. because of no right being, shOwn to the relief for. .
In Equity. On application for preliminary injunction. The bill of complaint alleged that defendant, an employe of complainants, 'had invented certain improvements in complainant's machinery, in adopting which coroplainanthad been put to great expense; that defendant now intended to take.out patents' on such inventions, and enjoin com,.· plainant's use,of them, and exact royalties, which,under hiscontra,ct of. employment.withcomplainant, defendant was not entitled to exact; that
by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.