Atterbury v. Gill

U.S. Circuit Court

Atterbury v. Gill

2 F. Cas. 193, 2 Flip. 239

DecidedOctober 15, 1878

StatusPublished

This text of 2 F. Cas. 193 (Atterbury v. Gill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Atterbury v. Gill, 2 F. Cas. 193, 2 Flip. 239 (uscirct 1878).

Pincite

Opinion

WELICER, District Judge.

Under rule 56, the case was not revived unless an order to that effect was made, and in this particular case the demurrer was allowed to stand as if filed on rule, and the motion was overruled. The demurrer raises the question of the survival of actions for infringement of patents, against the administrator of the in-fringer after a decree of infringement and reference to master or commissioner to assess amount for which decree was to be entered.

1. Although as a general rule, actions for torts do not survive against the representatives of deceased defendants pending the suit, yet these proceedings in equity for infringement of patents are not strictly proceedings for torts. The respondent who infringes a patent is held in equity as a trustee of the owner of the patent and compelled to account to him for the profits realized from the manufacture of the infringing machine or product. The infringer is also liable to the patentee for damages for such infringement, and both of these causes of action are combined in the case in equity, as well as the prayer for perpetual injunction..

2. In this case, the decree having settled the question of infringement, and the case having been referred to the master, before the death of respondent, to ascertain the amount for which the decree should be rendered, which will embody either both or one of these claims of claimant, therefore the action does survive. The demurrer is overruled and order of revival entered.

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

WELICER, District Judge.

Under rule 56, the case was not revived unless an order to that effect was made, and in this particular case the demurrer was allowed to stand as if filed on rule, and the motion was overruled. The demurrer raises the question of the survival of actions for infringement of patents, against the administrator of the in-fringer after a decree of infringement and reference to master or commissioner to assess amount for which decree was to be entered.

1. Although as a general rule, actions for torts do not survive against the representatives of deceased defendants pending the suit, yet these proceedings in equity for infringement of patents are not strictly proceedings for torts. The respondent who infringes a patent is held in equity as a trustee of the owner of the patent and compelled to account to him for the profits realized from the manufacture of the infringing machine or product. The infringer is also liable to the patentee for damages for such infringement, and both of these causes of action are combined in the case in equity, as well as the prayer for perpetual injunction..

2. In this case, the decree having settled the question of infringement, and the case having been referred to the master, before the death of respondent, to ascertain the amount for which the decree should be rendered, which will embody either both or one of these claims of claimant, therefore the action does survive. The demurrer is overruled and order of revival entered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 F. Cas. 193, 2 Flip. 239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atterbury-v-gill-uscirct-1878.