TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

National Button Works v. Wade

Nat'l Button Works v. Wade, 72 F. 298 (1896)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · Historical Federal Courts
Decided
February 1, 1896
Judges
Lacombe
Citations
72 F. 2981896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2562
Headnotes
Courts — Jurisdiction in Patent Cases — Where Suit mat be Brought. A resident of the Eastern district of New York, wbo is doing business in the Southern district, and is “found” and served therein, may be sued therein for infringement of a patent by a corporation of another state. In re Hohorst, 14 Sup. Ct. 221, 150 U. S. 659, followed.
Summary
Motion to Dismiss Bill for Want of Jurisdiction. The complainant is a Pennsylvania corporation; defendant a citizen of New York, doing business in the Southern district, but a resident of the Eastern district, of that state. He was “found” in the Southern district, and there served with process. The suit is for infringement of a 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 — Lacombe

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

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

Subsequent to the passage of the act of 1887, and prior to the decision of the supreme court in Re Hohorst, 150 U. S. 659 , 14 Sup. Ct. 221, applications such as this, when made upon like facts, were uniformly granted in patent causes in (his circuit, and the decided preponderance of authority in other circuits approved such a disposition of them; the act of 1887 being construed as operating in restriction of jurisdiction. The opinion in the Hohorst Case has been held to apply to all patent causes by Judge Wheeler in Smith v. Manufacturing Co., 67 Fed. 801 , and by Judge Townsend to apply only to such suits when brought against aliens. Union Switch & Signal Co. v. Hall Signal Co., 65 Fed. 625 . See, also, opinion of Judge Colt in Donnelly v. Cordage Co., 66 Fed. 613 . The latter construction commended ieself to the judge now sitting, and has been followed in at least two cases, not reported. It is doubtful, however, whether the Hohorst Case can be thus distinguished in view of the later opinion of the supreme court in Re Keasbey & Mattison Co. (Dec. 16, 1895) 16 Sup. Ct. 273, where that court says that the Hohorst Case was "a suit for infringement of a patent right, exclusive jurisdiction of which had been granted to the circuit courts of the United States by sections [of the Revised Statutes] re-enacting earlier acts of congress, and was, therefore, not affected by general provisions regulating the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States concurrent with that of the several states.” The motion to dismiss is therefore denied.

How later courts describe this case

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

1896: 21898: 11900: 11902: 11910: 11942: 118962026peak 1896 · 2

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 4

DepthCaseCited by
In re Hohorst, 150 U.S. 653 (1893) 166
Donnelly v. United States Cordage Co., 66 F. 613 (1895) 8
Smith v. Sargent Manuf'g Co., 67 F. 801 (1895) 5
Union Switch & Signal Co. v. Hall Signal Co., 65 F. 625 (1895) 4

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