Mayor of New York v. American Cable Ry. Co.

Second Circuit

Mayor of New York v. American Cable Ry. Co.

60 F. 1016, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 2155

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 18, 1894

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 60 F. 1016 (Mayor of New York v. American Cable Ry. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mayor of New York v. American Cable Ry. Co., 60 F. 1016, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 2155 (2d Cir. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

WALLACE, Circuit Judge.

The complainant’s title to the letters patent in suit depends upon the authenticity of the mesne assignments under which it claims. No evidence was introduced tending to prove the execution of the assignments from the patentee to Horton, from Horton to the Cable Railway Construction Company, and from the Cable Railway Construction Company to the complainant, except duly-certified copies of the patent-office record of three instruments which purport to be such assignments. The objection that the instruments were not sufficiently proved was taken in due season, and was insisted upon at the hearing in the circuit court. We are of opinion that the objection was valid, and consequently that the complainant was not entitled to a decree.

The assignment of a patent is not a public document, but is merely a private writing There is no statutory provision requiring it to be recorded in the patent office. Section 4898 of the Revised Statutes permits this to be done for the protection of the assignee against a .subsequent bona fide purchaser or mortgagee. The section does not make' the recorded instrument evidence, does not reqnire the assignment to be executed in the presence of any public officer, or to be acknowledged or authenticated in any way before recording, and does not provide or contemplate that it shall remain subsequently in the custody of the office. It devolves upon the patent office merely the clerical duty of recording any instrument which purports to be the assignment of a patent. We are aware of no principle which gives to such a record the effect of primary evidence, or of [1017]*1017pvima facie proof of tlie execution or tbe genuineness c £ the original document. To give it such effect would enable parties to manufacture evidence for them,selves.

Sec I ion 892 of the Bevised Statutes does not touch the point. That section provides that written or printed copies of any records, books, papers, or drawings belonging to the patent office shall be evidence in all cases wherein the originals could be evidence. The original assignment does not belong to the patent office. The section makes a copy evidence of the same class as the original record, but has no application when the original record is not competent. The early cases of Brooks v. Jenkins, 3 McLean, 432, Fed. Cas. No. 1,953. and Parker v. Haworth, 4 McLean, 370, Fed. Cas. No. 10,738, in which it was held that a certified copy of the patent-office record of an assignment of a patent is prima facie evidence of the genuineness of the instrument, were decided at first instance, and apparently without much consideration. The rule of these cases has been accepted without discussion in the later cases of Lee v. Blandy, 1 Bond, 361, Fed. Cas. No. 8,182; Dederick v. Agricultural Co., 26 Fed. 763; National Folding Box & Paper Co. v. American Paper Pail & Box Co., 55 Fed. 488. It is not improbable that these decisions were influenced by the technical nature of the objection in the particular-cases. But the rule opens the door to fraud, as any stranger can put an assignment upon record; and it imposes upon a defendant who honestly doubts whether a party who claims title to a patent is the owner the burden which ought to rest upon his adversary. Our conclusions are supported by the opinion of the circuit court of appeals in Paine v. Trask. 5 C. C. A. 497, 56 Fed. 233, where the question was considered with care, although its decision was unnecessary to the judgment.

We have not considered the point argued by the appellants that. the bill should have been dismissed because no proof was given of the complainant’s incorporation. The assignment of errors does not present the question. Although, upon the proofs in the circuit court, the complainant was not entitled to a decree, it would have been a proper exercise of discretion on the part of the court, in view of the reliance which the complainant had doubtless placed upon the adjudications which have been referred to, to permit the complainant to reopen the proofs, and (he cause to be reheard. In reversing the decree and directing the dismissal of the complainant’s bill, we do so without prejudice to the granting by the circuit court of such an application, if seasonably made by the complainant.

The decree is reversed, with instructions to the circuit court to proceed in conformity with this opinion.

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

WALLACE, Circuit Judge.

The complainant’s title to the letters patent in suit depends upon the authenticity of the mesne assignments under which it claims. No evidence was introduced tending to prove the execution of the assignments from the patentee to Horton, from Horton to the Cable Railway Construction Company, and from the Cable Railway Construction Company to the complainant, except duly-certified copies of the patent-office record of three instruments which purport to be such assignments. The objection that the instruments were not sufficiently proved was taken in due season, and was insisted upon at the hearing in the circuit court. We are of opinion that the objection was valid, and consequently that the complainant was not entitled to a decree.

The assignment of a patent is not a public document, but is merely a private writing There is no statutory provision requiring it to be recorded in the patent office. Section 4898 of the Revised Statutes permits this to be done for the protection of the assignee against a .subsequent bona fide purchaser or mortgagee. The section does not make' the recorded instrument evidence, does not reqnire the assignment to be executed in the presence of any public officer, or to be acknowledged or authenticated in any way before recording, and does not provide or contemplate that it shall remain subsequently in the custody of the office. It devolves upon the patent office merely the clerical duty of recording any instrument which purports to be the assignment of a patent. We are aware of no principle which gives to such a record the effect of primary evidence, or of [1017]*1017pvima facie proof of tlie execution or tbe genuineness c £ the original document. To give it such effect would enable parties to manufacture evidence for them,selves.

Sec I ion 892 of the Bevised Statutes does not touch the point. That section provides that written or printed copies of any records, books, papers, or drawings belonging to the patent office shall be evidence in all cases wherein the originals could be evidence. The original assignment does not belong to the patent office. The section makes a copy evidence of the same class as the original record, but has no application when the original record is not competent. The early cases of Brooks v. Jenkins, 3 McLean, 432, Fed. Cas. No. 1,953. and Parker v. Haworth, 4 McLean, 370, Fed. Cas. No. 10,738, in which it was held that a certified copy of the patent-office record of an assignment of a patent is prima facie evidence of the genuineness of the instrument, were decided at first instance, and apparently without much consideration. The rule of these cases has been accepted without discussion in the later cases of Lee v. Blandy, 1 Bond, 361, Fed. Cas. No. 8,182; Dederick v. Agricultural Co., 26 Fed. 763; National Folding Box & Paper Co. v. American Paper Pail & Box Co., 55 Fed. 488. It is not improbable that these decisions were influenced by the technical nature of the objection in the particular-cases. But the rule opens the door to fraud, as any stranger can put an assignment upon record; and it imposes upon a defendant who honestly doubts whether a party who claims title to a patent is the owner the burden which ought to rest upon his adversary. Our conclusions are supported by the opinion of the circuit court of appeals in Paine v. Trask. 5 C. C. A. 497, 56 Fed. 233, where the question was considered with care, although its decision was unnecessary to the judgment.

We have not considered the point argued by the appellants that. the bill should have been dismissed because no proof was given of the complainant’s incorporation. The assignment of errors does not present the question. Although, upon the proofs in the circuit court, the complainant was not entitled to a decree, it would have been a proper exercise of discretion on the part of the court, in view of the reliance which the complainant had doubtless placed upon the adjudications which have been referred to, to permit the complainant to reopen the proofs, and (he cause to be reheard. In reversing the decree and directing the dismissal of the complainant’s bill, we do so without prejudice to the granting by the circuit court of such an application, if seasonably made by the complainant.

The decree is reversed, with instructions to the circuit court to proceed in conformity with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 F. 1016, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 2155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayor-of-new-york-v-american-cable-ry-co-ca2-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack