International Wireless Telegraph Co. v. Fessenden

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey

International Wireless Telegraph Co. v. Fessenden

131 F. 493, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4920

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey

DecidedAugust 16, 1904

DocketNo. 2

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 131 F. 493 (International Wireless Telegraph Co. v. Fessenden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

International Wireless Telegraph Co. v. Fessenden, 131 F. 493, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4920 (circtdnj 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

ARCHBALD, District Judge.¹

The opinion of Judge Kirkpatrick (now deceased) discloses that the bill was directed to be dismissed not so much on the ground that the subpoena had not been properly served —which possibly could be cured, and as to which the conclusion simply was that the return of the marshal should be quashed — but on the ground that, although brought against one who, on the face of the pleadings, was admittedly a nonresident of the district, it failed to state the necessary facts to give jurisdiction in such cases. Act March 3, 1897, c. 395, 29 Stat. 695 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 589]. It was not alleged, for instance, that any act of infringement had been committed within the district, nor that the defendant had a regular and established place of business there, with an agent in charge upon whom service could properly be made. In other words, the case, as stated in the bill, was one over which the court had no jurisdiction; and, if so, it is not one in which costs can be awarded. Citizens’ Bank of Louisiana v. Cannon, 164 U. S. 319, 17 Sup. Ct. 89, 41 L. Ed. 451.

The motion for costs to the defendant is refused.

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

ARCHBALD, District Judge.¹

The opinion of Judge Kirkpatrick (now deceased) discloses that the bill was directed to be dismissed not so much on the ground that the subpoena had not been properly served —which possibly could be cured, and as to which the conclusion simply was that the return of the marshal should be quashed — but on the ground that, although brought against one who, on the face of the pleadings, was admittedly a nonresident of the district, it failed to state the necessary facts to give jurisdiction in such cases. Act March 3, 1897, c. 395, 29 Stat. 695 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 589]. It was not alleged, for instance, that any act of infringement had been committed within the district, nor that the defendant had a regular and established place of business there, with an agent in charge upon whom service could properly be made. In other words, the case, as stated in the bill, was one over which the court had no jurisdiction; and, if so, it is not one in which costs can be awarded. Citizens’ Bank of Louisiana v. Cannon, 164 U. S. 319, 17 Sup. Ct. 89, 41 L. Ed. 451.

The motion for costs to the defendant is refused.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 F. 493, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/international-wireless-telegraph-co-v-fessenden-circtdnj-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack