Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

24 F. 187

Cornelly v. Markwald

United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York

Decided 1885.)

United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York · decided 1885

<p>Patents foe Inventions — Infringement—Costs—Expense of Model.</p> <p>The expense of obtaining a model of an infringing machine cannot be deemed i taxable disbursement in favor of the prevailing party.</p>

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The clerk properly refused to tax the item of $150 in plaintiff’s bill of costs for the expense of obtaining a model of the defendant’s infringing machine. Irrespective of any question as to the propriety or necessity of procuring such a model, the expense incurred cannot be, deemed a taxable disbursement in favor of the prevailing party. The reasons why such an item should not be allowed are fully stated in the opinion of the court in Woodruff v. Barney, 1 Bond, 528 , Fed. Cas. No. 17,986, and in Hussey v. Bradley, 5 Blatchf. 210 , Fed. Cas. No. 6,946a. It is obvious that it would subject litigants in patent cases to onerous, and sometimes to oppressive, burdens, if parties were permitted, at their discretion, to procure models, and tax their unsuccessful adversaries with the expense. The question is not an open one. See, also, Wooster v. Barker, 23 Fed. 49 .””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Kelly v. Springfield Ry. Co.

Relies on Wooster v. Handy

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1885

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently January 1952

5 federal appellate · 2 district ·

4018851890190019101920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Patents foe Inventions — Infringement—Costs—Expense of Model.

¶2The expense of obtaining a model of an infringing machine cannot be deemed i taxable disbursement in favor of the prevailing party.

¶3Wallace, J.

¶4The clerk properly refused to tax the item of $150 in plaintiff’s hill of costs for the expense of obtaining a model of the defendant’s infringing machine. Irrespective of any question as to the propriety or necessity of procuring such a model, the expense incurred cannot be deemed a taxable disbursement in favor of the prevailing party. The reasons why such an item should not be allowed, are fully stated in the opinion of the court in Woodruff v. Barney, 1 Bond, 528, and in Hussey v. Bradley, 5 Blatchf. 210. It is obvious that it would subject litigants in patent cases to onerous and sometimes to oppressive burdens, if parties were permitted, at their discretion, to procure models, and tax their unsuccessful adversaries with the expense. The question is not an open one. See, also, Wooster v. Barker, 23 Fed. Rep. 49.

¶5The taxation is affirmed.

/24/f1d/187 · .json · Public domain