34 F.1d 435 - Wren v. Annin — 34 F. 435

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1918

2 federal appellate ·

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.

¶1Courts — Federal Jurisdiction- — Patents tor Invention» — Entorcuto As-SKi-XSIBNT.

¶2An action where the relief demanded is an assignment of letters patent, and damages, and where all the parties are residents of the same state, does not lie within the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Following Trading Co. v. Claeuser, 130 Fed. Hop. 387.

¶3In Equity. On demurrer.

¶4Complainant Wren, the inventor and patentee of an improvement in metallic wheelbarrows, assigned his letters patent to defendant, Annin, in consideration of.one dollar and an agreement by Annin to furnish money for the manufacture of 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 defendants to reassign the letters patent to complainant, and for damages. The bill was demurred to on the ground that as all the parties were residents of the state of New York, the jurisdiction of this action lay with the New York state courts, and this court had no jurisdiction.

¶5I. S. Cutlin, for complainant.

¶6John L. Hill, for defendants.

¶8.Lacombe, •).

¶9I am unable to distinguish this case from Hartell v. Tilghman, 99 U. S. 547, and Trading Co. v. Glaenzer, 30 Fed. Rep. 387. Demurrer is sustained.