Elastic Fabrics Co. v. Smith

100 U.S. 110, 25 L. Ed. 547, 10 Otto 110, 1879 U.S. LEXIS 1811
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedNovember 10, 1879
Docket44
StatusPublished
Cited by30 cases

This text of 100 U.S. 110 (Elastic Fabrics Co. v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Elastic Fabrics Co. v. Smith, 100 U.S. 110, 25 L. Ed. 547, 10 Otto 110, 1879 U.S. LEXIS 1811 (1879).

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

For all practical purposes, except costs, the appellant was successful in the court below. While the validity of the appellee’s patent was sustained, it was a fruitless victory to him, because the patent expired before the determination of the suit, and the court found that he was not entitled to recover from the appellant either profits or damages. As the decree stands, it sustains an- expired patent, and does no more. When it was rendered against him, the appellant was left at liberty to use the patented machine in any way he chose, and- he has not been required to pay any thing for the use he made of it while the patent was in force. The appeal, therefore, presents only a moot case except as to costs.

We think the disclaimer as to the reissued patent, division B, had no effect on the costs in this case, because the question presented for decision was whether, notwithstanding that disclaimer, the other divisions of the reissue should be sustained. The statute as to costs after a disclaimer (Rev. Stat., sect. 4922), therefore, has no application to this suit, and the appeal is practically reduced to the single question whether, if the decree below should be reversed, the appellee ought to have *112 his costs in that court, and, if so, how much. No appeal lies from a mere decree respecting costs and expenses. Canter v. The American and Ocean Insurance Companies, 3 Pet. 307. As this case comes within the reason of that rule, we affirm the decree below without examining the merits.

Decree affirmed

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

Related

Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Froehlke
368 F. Supp. 231 (W.D. Missouri, 1973)
Wetzel v. Ohio
371 U.S. 62 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Howard v. Wilbur
166 F.2d 884 (Sixth Circuit, 1948)
French v. Jeffries
161 F.2d 97 (Seventh Circuit, 1947)
Johnson Wholesale Perfume Co. v. Blumen
9 A.2d 857 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1939)
City of Orlando v. Murphy
94 F.2d 426 (Fifth Circuit, 1938)
Guardian Trust Co. v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co.
28 F.2d 233 (Eighth Circuit, 1928)
Nevares-López v. Nevares Bros.
37 P.R. 796 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1928)
Nevares López v. Nevares Hermanos
37 P.R. Dec. 857 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1928)
Newton v. Consolidated Gas Co. of NY
265 U.S. 78 (Supreme Court, 1924)
Stallo v. Wagner
245 F. 636 (Second Circuit, 1917)
Wright v. Gorman-Wright Co.
152 F. 408 (Fourth Circuit, 1907)
Nutter v. Brown
52 S.E. 88 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1905)
Western Coal & Mining Co. v. Petty
132 F. 603 (Eighth Circuit, 1904)
In re Michigan Cent. R. Co.
124 F. 727 (Sixth Circuit, 1903)
The Longfellow
104 F. 360 (Sixth Circuit, 1900)
Foster v. Elk Fork Oil & Gas Co.
99 F. 617 (Fourth Circuit, 1900)
Tyler Min. Co. v. Sweeney
79 F. 277 (Ninth Circuit, 1897)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
100 U.S. 110, 25 L. Ed. 547, 10 Otto 110, 1879 U.S. LEXIS 1811, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elastic-fabrics-co-v-smith-scotus-1879.