Roemer v. Bernheim

132 U.S. 103
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedNovember 11, 1889
DocketNo. 52
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 132 U.S. 103 (Roemer v. Bernheim) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Roemer v. Bernheim, 132 U.S. 103 (1889).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Gray,

after stating the case as above reported, delivered the opinion of the court.

After the case had been heard and decided upon its merits, the plaintiff could not .file a disclaimer in court, or introduce new evidence upon that or any other subject, -except at a rehearing granted by the court, upon such terms as it thought fit to impose. The granting or refusal, absolute or conditional, of a rehearing in equity, as of a new trial at law, rests in the discretion of the court in which the case has been heard or tried, and is not a subject of appeal. The terms imposed as a condition precedent to a rehearing not having been complied with, the disclaimer was not in the case.

The construction which the court gavé to the claims of the patent as-originally issued was indisputably correct. So construed, it is' hardly denied by the plaintiff, and is conclusively proved by the evidence, that the patent is void for want of novelty.

Decree affirmed.

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

Related

Minkap of California, Inc. v. United States
55 C.C.P.A. 1 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1967)
A. W. Fenton Co. v. United States
53 C.C.P.A. 98 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1966)
De Jordan v. Hudspeth
137 F.2d 943 (Tenth Circuit, 1943)
Denney v. Fort Recovery Banking Co.
135 F.2d 184 (Seventh Circuit, 1943)
Pfister v. Northern Illinois Finance Corp.
317 U.S. 144 (Supreme Court, 1942)
Mintz v. Lester
95 F.2d 590 (Tenth Circuit, 1938)
Wayne United Gas Co. v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co.
300 U.S. 131 (Supreme Court, 1937)
Good Roads Co. v. Charles Hvass & Co.
70 F.2d 625 (Second Circuit, 1934)
Garden City Feeder Co. v. Commissioner
27 B.T.A. 1132 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1933)
Lamson Co. v. Whittemore
51 F.2d 875 (Seventh Circuit, 1931)
Steinfur Patents Corp. v. Meyerson
49 F.2d 765 (Second Circuit, 1931)
Hazeltine Corp. v. Wildermuth
35 F.2d 733 (Second Circuit, 1929)
Trane Co. v. Nash Engineering Co.
25 F.2d 267 (First Circuit, 1928)
Producers' & Refiners' Corp. v. Lehmann
18 F.2d 492 (Eighth Circuit, 1927)
Willis v. Davis
184 F. 889 (Sixth Circuit, 1911)
Smith v. Simpson
140 F. 712 (Eighth Circuit, 1905)
Sample v. American Soda Fountain Co.
134 F. 402 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania, 1905)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
132 U.S. 103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roemer-v-bernheim-scotus-1889.