Helen Russell Pierce, of the Last Will and Testament of George Washington Pierce, Deceased v. Allen B. Du Mont Laboratories, Inc

Third Circuit

Helen Russell Pierce, of the Last Will and Testament of George Washington Pierce, Deceased v. Allen B. Du Mont Laboratories, Inc

278 F.2d 323, 125 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 375, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4619

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMay 9, 1960

Docket323_1

StatusPublished

This text of 278 F.2d 323 (Helen Russell Pierce, of the Last Will and Testament of George Washington Pierce, Deceased v. Allen B. Du Mont Laboratories, Inc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Helen Russell Pierce, of the Last Will and Testament of George Washington Pierce, Deceased v. Allen B. Du Mont Laboratories, Inc, 278 F.2d 323, 125 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 375, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4619 (3d Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Du Mont has moved to docket and dismiss the appeal at bar, that of Pierce, Executrix. The basis asserted for dismissal is the death of the original plaintiff, G. W. Pierce. The suit involves the validity and infringement of certain patents formerly owned by him and now possessed by his Executrix. Du Mont asserts that since, allegedly, the cause of action did not survive G. W. Pierce’s death the suit should have been dismissed by the court below since his Executrix does not have the standing to maintain it. The court below ruled against Du Mont on this issue and determined the case on the merits rendering judgment against the Executrix. Pierce v. Allen B. Du Mont Laboratories, Inc., D.C.1959, 178 F.Supp. 84.

Du Mont’s motion must be denied. We can dismiss an appeal only if we lack jurisdiction to entertain it. Here, clearly we have jurisdiction to decide whether the court below was right or wrong in holding (1) that the Executrix had the right to maintain the suit, and (2) whether the court below was *324 right or wrong in holding on the merits that the patents sued on were invalid and not infringed. Consequently the motion to dismiss must be denied. An order to that effect will be entered.

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

PER CURIAM.

Du Mont has moved to docket and dismiss the appeal at bar, that of Pierce, Executrix. The basis asserted for dismissal is the death of the original plaintiff, G. W. Pierce. The suit involves the validity and infringement of certain patents formerly owned by him and now possessed by his Executrix. Du Mont asserts that since, allegedly, the cause of action did not survive G. W. Pierce’s death the suit should have been dismissed by the court below since his Executrix does not have the standing to maintain it. The court below ruled against Du Mont on this issue and determined the case on the merits rendering judgment against the Executrix. Pierce v. Allen B. Du Mont Laboratories, Inc., D.C.1959, 178 F.Supp. 84.

Du Mont’s motion must be denied. We can dismiss an appeal only if we lack jurisdiction to entertain it. Here, clearly we have jurisdiction to decide whether the court below was right or wrong in holding (1) that the Executrix had the right to maintain the suit, and (2) whether the court below was *324 right or wrong in holding on the merits that the patents sued on were invalid and not infringed. Consequently the motion to dismiss must be denied. An order to that effect will be entered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 F.2d 323, 125 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 375, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/helen-russell-pierce-of-the-last-will-and-testament-of-george-washington-ca3-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack