Matthews v. Iron Clad Manuf'g Co.

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

Matthews v. Iron Clad Manuf'g Co.

19 F. 321, 1884 U.S. App. LEXIS 2040

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

DecidedFebruary 8, 1884

StatusPublished

This text of 19 F. 321 (Matthews v. Iron Clad Manuf'g Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matthews v. Iron Clad Manuf'g Co., 19 F. 321, 1884 U.S. App. LEXIS 2040 (circtsdny 1884).

Pincite

Opinion

Wallace, J.

The defendant moves to expunge from the proofs certain decrees introduced by the complainant, obtained in actions in which he was complainant, adjudicating the validity of the patent upon which the present suit is brought. These decrees were obtained in suits against infringers to which the present defendant was not a party, or privy. The evidence was introduced against the defendant’s objection, and is now insisted on as tending to show acquiescence in the rights of the plaintiff under his patent. If it were necessary for the complainant to show that he had asserted his rights [322]*322under the patent, before the present suit, doubtless the records would be evidence that he had brought suits and prosecuted them to final judgment. They are not competent, however, as admissions of third persons, because the defendant cannot be prejudiced by such admissions. The effect of such decrees is considered by Mr. Justice Nelson in Buck v. Hermance, 1 Blatchf. 322, where beheld that, although admissible upon motions for a provisional injunction in which the ordinary rules of evidence do not obtain, they are proceedings inter alios, and therefore not competent on a trial upon the merits.

The motion is granted.

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

Wallace, J.

The defendant moves to expunge from the proofs certain decrees introduced by the complainant, obtained in actions in which he was complainant, adjudicating the validity of the patent upon which the present suit is brought. These decrees were obtained in suits against infringers to which the present defendant was not a party, or privy. The evidence was introduced against the defendant’s objection, and is now insisted on as tending to show acquiescence in the rights of the plaintiff under his patent. If it were necessary for the complainant to show that he had asserted his rights [322]*322under the patent, before the present suit, doubtless the records would be evidence that he had brought suits and prosecuted them to final judgment. They are not competent, however, as admissions of third persons, because the defendant cannot be prejudiced by such admissions. The effect of such decrees is considered by Mr. Justice Nelson in Buck v. Hermance, 1 Blatchf. 322, where beheld that, although admissible upon motions for a provisional injunction in which the ordinary rules of evidence do not obtain, they are proceedings inter alios, and therefore not competent on a trial upon the merits.

The motion is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 F. 321, 1884 U.S. App. LEXIS 2040, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthews-v-iron-clad-manufg-co-circtsdny-1884.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack