American Zylonite Co. v. Celluloid Manuf'g Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

American Zylonite Co. v. Celluloid Manuf'g Co.

32 F. 809, 1887 U.S. App. LEXIS 2858

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedDecember 14, 1887

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 32 F. 809 (American Zylonite Co. v. Celluloid Manuf'g Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Zylonite Co. v. Celluloid Manuf'g Co., 32 F. 809, 1887 U.S. App. LEXIS 2858 (circtsdny 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Coxe, J.

The ex parle entry in the rule-book was a nullity. A complainant in an equity action cannot in this manner discontinue the suit. An order of the court is necessary. Conner v. Drake, 1 Ohio St. 170. The right, however, of a complainant to dismiss a bill before hearing,, [810]*810whore the defendant has acquired no substantive rights, is well nigh absolute. It must be an extraordinary case where the court refuses to exercise its discretion. Railroad Co. v. Rolling-Mill Co., 109 U. S. 702, 713, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 594; Stevens v. Railroads, 4 Fed. Rep. 97.

I have examined the defendant’s record sufficiently to be convinced that there is nothing which particularly distinguishes this from other equity actions. It is asserted that the testimony relied upon to establish prior invention is of such a character that the defendant may be unable 'to procure it again, but the rights of the 'defendant will be protected in this regard if the complainant is compelled, as a condition of the discontinuance, to stipulate that the defendant’s record maybe used in any new suit which may be instituted against it by the complainant. Brush v. Condit, 22 Blatchf. 246, 20 Fed. Rep. 826.

Upon filing such a stipulation, and paying the costs, the action may be discontinued.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Coxe, J.

The ex parle entry in the rule-book was a nullity. A complainant in an equity action cannot in this manner discontinue the suit. An order of the court is necessary. Conner v. Drake, 1 Ohio St. 170. The right, however, of a complainant to dismiss a bill before hearing,, [810]*810whore the defendant has acquired no substantive rights, is well nigh absolute. It must be an extraordinary case where the court refuses to exercise its discretion. Railroad Co. v. Rolling-Mill Co., 109 U. S. 702, 713, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 594; Stevens v. Railroads, 4 Fed. Rep. 97.

I have examined the defendant’s record sufficiently to be convinced that there is nothing which particularly distinguishes this from other equity actions. It is asserted that the testimony relied upon to establish prior invention is of such a character that the defendant may be unable 'to procure it again, but the rights of the 'defendant will be protected in this regard if the complainant is compelled, as a condition of the discontinuance, to stipulate that the defendant’s record maybe used in any new suit which may be instituted against it by the complainant. Brush v. Condit, 22 Blatchf. 246, 20 Fed. Rep. 826.

Upon filing such a stipulation, and paying the costs, the action may be discontinued.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 F. 809, 1887 U.S. App. LEXIS 2858, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-zylonite-co-v-celluloid-manufg-co-circtsdny-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack