Johnson Metal Products Co. v. Lundell-Eckberg Mfg. Co.

W.D. New York

Johnson Metal Products Co. v. Lundell-Eckberg Mfg. Co.

25 F. Supp. 937, 40 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 64, 1938 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1536

District Court, W.D. New York·Decided November 30, 1938·No. No. 1747·Published

Opinion

KNIGHT, District Judge.

This suit was tried and the mandate on appeal filed prior to the effective date of the present Rules of Civil Procedure. It seems that under new Rule 54(d), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, the court can exercise its discretion in the matter of costs, but if not, the old Rules should be followed. The application of the new Rules would work an injustice in this suit. Under the old Rules costs were clearly discretionary in the patent suit. The court heretofore allowed the defendant $125 costs. Allowance of $350 in addition thereto is ample and fair under all the circumstances of the case.

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

KNIGHT, District Judge.

This suit was tried and the mandate on appeal filed prior to the effective date of the present Rules of Civil Procedure. It seems that under new Rule 54(d), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, the court can exercise its discretion in the matter of costs, but if not, the old Rules should be followed. The application of the new Rules would work an injustice in this suit. Under the old Rules costs were clearly discretionary in the patent suit. The court heretofore allowed the defendant $125 costs. Allowance of $350 in addition thereto is ample and fair under all the circumstances of the case.

Johnson Metal Products Co. v. Lundell-Eckberg Mfg. Co., 25 F. Supp. 937, 40 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 64, 1938 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1536 (W.D.N.Y. 1938).

Pincite

25 F. Supp. 937 (Johnson Metal Products Co. v. Lundell-Eckberg Mfg. Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.