Bourne v. Goodyear

Bourne v. Goodyear, 76 U.S. (9 Wall.) 811 (1870)

Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Decided: April 25, 1870
Citations: 76 U.S. 81119 L. Ed. 7869 Wall. 8111869 U.S. LEXIS 1035

Cited by 3

Syllabus

A 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. ,

Summary

Appeal 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.

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

Opinion

The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.

The 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 Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 3 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

King Mechanism & Engineering Co. v. Western Wheeled Scraper Co.59 F.2d 546 (7th Cir. 1932)
United States v. Hartford-Empire Co.73 F. Supp. 979 (D. Del. 1947)
Tuttle v. Claflin76 F. 227 (2d Cir. 1896)

Most recent

United States v. Hartford-Empire Co.73 F. Supp. 979 (D. Del. 1947)
King Mechanism & Engineering Co. v. Western Wheeled Scraper Co.59 F.2d 546 (7th Cir. 1932)
Tuttle v. Claflin76 F. 227 (2d Cir. 1896)

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