Fischer v. Hayes

39 F. 613, 1889 U.S. App. LEXIS 2359
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York·Decided August 15, 1889·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Wheeler, J.

This cause has now been heard upon the supplemental report of the master as to profits of the defendant from infringement of the plaintiffs patent. The substance of the report, as it now stands, is that from all the evidence before the master the amount of such profits “cannot be computed or determined.” Therefore, while that there were some profits is apparent from the report, no definite extent of them attributable to the infringement for which the defendant is chargeable appears. There is no foundation for a decree for the payment of anything beyond merely nominal damages. Fischer v. Hayes, 22 Fed. Rep. 529; Garretson v. Clark, 111 U. S. 120, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 291; Black v. Thorne, 111 U. S. 122, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 326; Dobson v. Carpet Co., 114 U. S. 439, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 945. No exceptions are filed to the report, and the only question is as to what is a proper decree upon the facts stated. [614] Report accepted and confirmed, and decree thereupon prdered for the payment by defendant to the orator of six cents profits as damages, with costs.

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

Fischer v. Hayes, 39 F. 613, 1889 U.S. App. LEXIS 2359 (circtsdny 1889).

39 F. 613 (Fischer v. Hayes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Decker v. Smith
225 F. 776 (N.D. New York, 1915)