Gold v. Gold

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

Gold v. Gold

181 F. 544, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5593

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York·Decided May 25, 1910·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

WARD, Circuit Judge.

The prayer for relief seems to me to be so worded as to call for a decree on the interference only. But the structure of the bill and the including of the Commissioner of Patents as a party defendant show that the complainant’s intention is to ask for a decree upon the question of reissue, as well as upon that of interference. If the Commissioner of Patents were to appear, as he might, relief on two independent causes of action, each not affecting all parties, would be demanded.

I think the bill is multifarious, and therefore the demurrer is sustained, with leave to the complainant to amend, if so advised, within 20 days; otherwise, the bill to be dismissed.

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

WARD, Circuit Judge.

The prayer for relief seems to me to be so worded as to call for a decree on the interference only. But the structure of the bill and the including of the Commissioner of Patents as a party defendant show that the complainant’s intention is to ask for a decree upon the question of reissue, as well as upon that of interference. If the Commissioner of Patents were to appear, as he might, relief on two independent causes of action, each not affecting all parties, would be demanded.

I think the bill is multifarious, and therefore the demurrer is sustained, with leave to the complainant to amend, if so advised, within 20 days; otherwise, the bill to be dismissed.

Gold v. Gold, 181 F. 544, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5593 (circtsdny 1910).

Pincite

181 F. 544 (Gold v. Gold) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related