TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Nassau Electric R. Co.

Thomson-Houston Elec. Co. v. Nassau Elec. R. Co., 119 F. 354 (2d Cir. 1902)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
November 6, 1902
Docket
No. 2
Citations
119 F. 35456 C.C.A. 961902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4679
Disposition
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
Syllabus
1. Appeal—Dismissal—Lace of Substantial Controversy. An appeal from an interlocutory decree finding infringement of a patent presents for review only that part of the decree granting an. injunction, and will be dismissed where it is shown that the controversy between the parties in respect to the injunction has been settled.
Summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York.

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

Opinion of the Court

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

PER CURIAM.

As the appeal in this cause is from an interlocutory decree, it lies only to that part of the decree which grants an in* junction, and if there is no longer any controversy between the parties touching the right of the complainant to enjoin the infringement *355 alleged in the bill the appeal presents no real controversy for decision. The counsel for the appellant has very properly called the attention of the court to that part of the record which discloses the present relation of the parties to the controversy, and indicates that it has been settled, except as it relates to a recovery of profits and damages, and the statement and documents submitted by counsel for the appellee substantiate what appears in the record. '

As there is no real and substantial controversy still existing between the parties which is presented by the appeal, the court ought not to hear the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1904: 11908: 119042026peak 1904 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Princeton Coal & Mining Co. v. Gilmore83 N.E. 500 (Ind. 1908)
  2. Timolat v. Philadelphia Pneumatic Tool Co.130 F. 903 (1904)

Most recent

  1. Princeton Coal & Mining Co. v. Gilmore83 N.E. 500 (Ind. 1908)
  2. Timolat v. Philadelphia Pneumatic Tool Co.130 F. 903 (1904)

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.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list