Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

76 U.S. 811

Bourne v. Goodyear

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided December 1, 1869

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1869-12

The bill showed that the extension of the patent sought to be vacated Iby the proceeding expired on the 14th of June, 1865; before the suit was commenced, and the defendant demurred to it on that ground among others. The court below dismissed the bill, and the relator brought the. case here.

1 counsel of record

Relies on Pierce v. Cox

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · 9–0 · Decided 1869-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 1947

3 federal appellate · 1 district ·

40186918701880189019001910192019301940decided

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 →

¶1A proceeding to vacate the extension of a patent, of which the extension has expired before the proceeding was begun, has no equity to support it, and cannot be sustained on demurrer. ,

¶2Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, in which court, on the 15th of June, 1865, a proceeding was begun, in the name of the United States, ex relatione Bourne, against the executor of Goodyear, to vacate an extension of a patent. The bill showed that the extension of the patent sought to be vacated Iby the proceeding expired on the 14th of June, 1865; before the suit was commenced, and the defendant demurred to it on that ground among others. The court below dismissed the bill, and the relator brought the. case here.

¶3Messrs. T. H. Parsons, A. Payne, and C. Cushing, for the appellant; Messrs. E. W. Stoughton and W. E. Curtis, contra.

¶4The CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5delivered the opinion of the court.

¶6The extension having expired before the bill was filed, there is no equity to support the application to set it aside. The extension has ceased to be of any effect, and there remains nothing which can be the subject of a suit. The demurrer to the bill, therefore, must be sustained, and the decree of the Circuit Court by which the bill was dismissed must be

¶7Affirmed.

/76/us/811 · .json · Public domain