Doubleday v. Sherman

Doubleday v. Sherman, 7 F. Cas. 959 (1869)

Court: U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · Historical Federal Courts
Decided: July 13, 1869
Judges: Blatchford
Citations: 7 F. Cas. 9596 Blatchf. 5131869 U.S. App. LEXIS 1295

Cited by 2

Headnotes

Case No. 4,019. -Jodgmekt — Opening Dkchee jn Patent Case-Laches. Where a defendant, in a suit in equity for the infringement of a patent, is advised of a -decree against him therein, for a perpetual injunction, made on final hearing, and pays in full an execution issued for the taxed costs awarded to the plaintiff by the decree, and neglects, for eleven months after making such pay- • ment, to move to open the decree to let in a de-fence, it is too late for him to do so. [NOTE.* Defendant Boas was subsequently ■prosecuted for a contempt in violating the injunction. See Case No. 4,020. For other eases involving this patent, see note to Doubleday v. -Bracheo, Case No. 4,018.]

Summary

This was a motion to dissolve the perpetual injunction issued in this case, and open the ■decree made therein on final hearing, to let in the defendants to defend. The suit was a suit in equity [by William E. Doubleday ■against Frederick Sherman and Herman M. Boas] for the infringement of letters patent.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Blatchford

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

BLATCHFORD, District Judge.

1. The defendants were advised of the decree as early •as May, ISOS, and yet took no steps to move to open it until April, 1869. They have, therefore, been guilty of such laches as not to be ■entitled to the favor they ask, as no excuse is shown for the delay.

2. By paying in full, in May, 1868. the exe- ■ cution issued for the taxed costs awarded to the plaintiff by the decree, without, before making such payment, taking measures to ■open the decree, the defendants have so affirmed the regularity and validity of the de- • cree, as to make it impossible now for them to move to set the decree aside, or to open it • to let in a defence.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 2 cases

View all citing references →

U.S. Courts of Appeals2

Relies on it most ⓘ

Merchants' Stock & Grain Co. v. Board of Trade of Chicago201 F. 20 (8th Cir. 1912)
Feldman v. American Palestine Line, Inc.18 F.2d 749 (2d Cir. 1927)

Most recent

Feldman v. American Palestine Line, Inc.18 F.2d 749 (2d Cir. 1927)
Merchants' Stock & Grain Co. v. Board of Trade of Chicago201 F. 20 (8th Cir. 1912)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list