Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

34 F. 433

Miller-Magee Co. v. Carpenter

United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of Ohio

Decided February 29, 1888.)

United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of Ohio · decided 1888-02-29

<p>1. Courts — Federal Jurisdiction — Jurisdictional Amount — Patents for Inventions — Action for Infringement.</p> <p>Neither Kev. St. U. S. §711, vesting in the United States courts exclusive jurisdiction of patent and copyright cases, nor section 699, providing for appeals and writs of error in such cases, without regard to the sum in dispule, was repealed by act Cong. March 3, 1875; and neither can therefore be repealed by act March 8, 1887, which only purports to amend the former act.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.</p> <p>2. Same — Yenue—Demurrer.</p> <p>Where a hill shows on its face that defendant is not an inhabitant of the district wherein the suit is brought, defendant may assert his objection to being served out of the district of his residence by demurrer as well as by motion to dismiss.</p>

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““By Act March 3, 1887, c. 373, § 1, as corrected by Act Aug. 13, 1888, c. 866, ‘the Circuit Courts of the United States shall have original cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several states, of all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum- or value of two thousand dollars, and arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, or treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority, or in which controversy the United States are plaintiffs or petitioners, or in which there shall be a controversy between citizens of different states’ ‘or a controversy between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, or a controversy between citizens of a state and foreign states, citizens or subjects.’ 24 Stat. 552 ; 25 Stat. 434 . The intention of Congress is manifest, at least as to cases of which the courts of the several states have concurrent jurisdiction, and which involve a certain amount or value, to vest in the Circuit Courts of the United States full and effectual jurisdiction, as contemplated by the Constitution, over each of the classes of controversies above mentioned. Moreover, the present suit is for the infringement of a patent for an invention, the jurisdiction of the national courts over which depends upon the subject-matter, and not upon the parties; and, by statutes in force at the time of the passage of the acts of 1887 a”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Lewis Blind Stitch Co. v. Arbetter Felling Mach. Co.

““Moreover, the present suit is for an infringement of a patent for an invention, the jurisdiction of the national courts over which depends upon the subject-matter, and not upon the parties; and, by statutes in force at the time of the passage of the acts of 1887 and 1888, the courts of the nation had original jurisdiction, ‘exclusive of the courts of the several states,’ of all cases arising under the patent right or copyright laws of the United States, without regard to the amount or value in dispute. Rev. St. § 629, cl. 9; Id. § 711, cl. 5. The section now in question, at the outset, spealrs only of so much of the civil jurisdiction of the circuit courts of the United States as is ‘concurrent with the courts of the several states,’ and as concerns cases in which the matter in dispute exceeds $2,000 in amount or value. The grant to the circuit courts of the United States, in this section, of jurisdiction over a class of cases described generally as ‘arising under the constitution and lawiS of the United States,’ does not affect the jurisdiction granted by earlier statutes to any court of the United States over specified cases of that class. If the clause of this section defining the district in which suit shall be brought is applicable to patent cases, the clause limiting the jurisdiction to matters of a certain amount or value must be held to be equally applicable, with the result that no court of the country, national or state, would have jurisdiction of patent suits invo”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Union Switch & Signal Co. v. Hall Signal Co.

Relies on Reinstadler v. Reeves

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1888-02-29

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1942

1 federal appellate · 1 district ·

401888189019001910192019301940decided

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 →

¶11. Courts — Federal Jurisdiction — Jurisdictional Amount — Patents for Inventions — Action for Infringement.

¶2Neither Kev. St. U. S. §711, vesting in the United States courts exclusive jurisdiction of patent and copyright cases, nor section 699, providing for appeals and writs of error in such cases, without regard to the sum in dispule, was repealed by act Cong. March 3, 1875; and neither can therefore be repealed by act March 8, 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.

¶32. Same — Yenue—Demurrer.

¶4Where a hill shows on its face that defendant is not an inhabitant of the district wherein the suit is brought, defendant may assert his objection to being served out of the district of his residence by demurrer as well as by motion to dismiss.

¶5In Equity. On demurrer to bill.

¶6Jere F. Twohig and Howson & Sons, for complainants.

¶7Parkinson & Parkinson, for defendant.

¶8JaoKson, J.

¶9The complainants, citizens of Ohio and Pennsylvania, as the present owner and licensees of letters patent No. 281,101, for certain now and useful improvements in book binding, issued February 2G, 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 defendant at Cincinnati, Ohio. In obedience to said process, defendant has appeared, and demurred to fhe jurisdiction of this court “for that it appears by said bill of complaint that this defendant is not an inhabitant of the district wherein this suit is brought, and for that it does not appear by said bill of complaint that the amount in controversy is sufficient to give jurisdiction to this court.” The bill makes no allegation or averment as to the amount involved in the controversy; and the second ground of demurrer assumes that, under the act of March

¶103. 1887, it must appear upon the face of the bill, in patent cases as in other civil suits, that the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, 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 States the circuit court has exclusive jurisdiction of all cases arising under 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 had 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 *434amending the act of 1875, no change in this respect is made by the act of March 3, 1887. The court is of the opinion that this ground of demurrer is not well taken and should be overruled.

¶11The other ground of demurrer, viz., “that it appears by said bill of complaint that the defendant is not an inhabitant of the district wherein this suit is brought,” presents a valid objection to the suit against the defendant in this district. It is not intended in holding this objection valid to decide that this court cannot, under the act of 1887, exercise any jurisdiction in cases like the present, when the defendant is not an inhabitant of the district wherein he is sued or served. This cdurt is inclined to the opinion that the act confers only a personal privilege upon the defendant in such cases, which he may waive; but, without deciding t-hat question, it is sufficient to hold — as the court does in the present case — that the facts appearing upon the face of the bill the 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 by the court in the case of Reinstadler v. Reeves, 33 Fed. Rep. 308, (Feb. 21, 1888,) which involved the same question raised by the present demurrer.

¶12The conclusion of the court'is that the 'first ground of demurrer is well taken, and should be sustained. It is accordingly so ordered, and the complainants’ bill will be dismissed with costs, but without prejudice to the right to sue in the proper district.

¶13ADDITIONAL OPINION.

¶14(May 7, 1888.)

¶15The question presented by one ground of demurrer in this case, viz., whether the jurisdiction of this court is defeated because the matter in dispute does not exceed, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of $2,000, has, at the request of counsel for the defendant, been reconsidered by the court, and as the result of that re-examination the court is confirmed in the conclusion heretofore announced, that the $2,000 limitation placed upon the jurisdiction of the court by and under the act of March 3, 1887, does not apply to patent cases or to suits for infringement of patents. The exclusive jurisdiction vested in the courts of the United States in cases arising under the patenfiright and copyright laws of the United States, (section 711, Rev. St.,) and the allowance of writs of error and appeals in such cases, without regard to the sum or value in dispute, (section 699, Rev. St.,) were not repealed, either expressly or by implication, by the act of March 3,1875. Theact of March 3,1887, only purports to amend the act of March 3, 1875, and by no fair or proper construction can it be held to repeal the foregoing statutory provisions relating to the exclusive jurisdiction of this court in cases arising under the patent laws without reference to the amount involved. The acts of 1875 and 1887 both refer to that class of cases in which the federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction with state courts.’ They do not apply to cases arising under the patent and copyright laws, as to which exclusive jurisdiction is vested in the courts of the United States, with*435out reference to tbe amount involved. The court accordingly adheres to its former ruling on this question, and overrules this ground of demurrer with costs.

/34/f1d/433 · .json · Public domain