55 F.1d 6 - Herrick v. Cutcheon — 55 F. 6

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 1940

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.

¶1Appeal — Time of Taking — Decree—Docket Estríes.

¶2The docket entry in an infringement suit, “Opinion — Decree for complainants,” does not constitute a decree for an injunction which is required to give the circuit court of appeals jurisdiction, nor can such entry be aided for that purpose by reference to the opinion; and hence an appeal taken before any decree is drawn is premature.

¶3Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts.

¶4In Equity. This was a suit by James C. Cutcheon and Charles S. Johnson against George W. Herrick, Frederick W. Herrick, and George H. Herrick for the infringement of letters patent Ho. 384,893, issued June 19, 1892, to the assignees of James C. Cutcheon, for an improvement in “beating-out machines.” The court rendered an opinion (52 Fed. Eep. 147) sustaining the patent, finding that it had been infringed, and concluding with the words, “Decree for complainants.” Thereupon, and before any decree was entered, defendants appealed.

¶5Dismissed.

¶6Charles A. Taber, for appellants.

¶7Alexander P. Browne, for appellees.

¶8Before PUTHAM, Circuit Judge, and HELSOH and WEBB, District Judges.

¶9PEE CUBIAM.

¶10Whatever may he the practice of the circuit court as to drawing out decrees before they become effective as such, it is plain that the docket entry in this case, containing only the words, “Opinion — Decree for complainants,” does not constitute a decree for an injunction required to give this court jurisdiction, nor can the docket entry he aided for that purpose by reference to the opinion. The appeal was taken prematurely, and is dismissed.