Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Elmira & H. Ry. Co.

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

Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Elmira & H. Ry. Co.

71 F. 886, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 3289

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

DecidedJune 29, 1895

DocketNo. 6,130

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 71 F. 886 (Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Elmira & H. Ry. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Elmira & H. Ry. Co., 71 F. 886, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 3289 (circtndny 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

COXE, District Judge.

As to costs. Four of the claims were withdrawn at the argument on intimation by the court that the question of invention as to .them was exceedingly doubtful. The court decided, as to three others, that the defendant did not infringe. Fourteen claims are not included in the decree, presumably for the reason, as to some of them at least, that they are thought to be for the same invention as those which are included. The defendant has been put to the trouble and expense of defending all of these claims, those withdrawn and not infringed equally with the others. In these circumstances the rule in this circuit is well settled that the complainant is not entitled to costs. Adams v. Howard, 22 Blatchf. 47, 19 Fed. 317; Hayes v. Bickelhoupt, 21 Fed. 566; Yale & G. Manuf’g Co. v. North, 5 Blatchf. 455, Fed. Cas. No. 18,323; Steam Trap Co. v. Felthousen, 20 Fed. 633; Tyler v. Galloway, 20 Blatchf. 445, 12 Fed. 567; Edison Electric Light Co. v. Electric Engineering & Supply Co., 60 Fed. 401; Electrical Accumulator Co. v. Julien Electric Co., 38 Fed. 117; Campbell Printing-Press & Manuf’g Co. v. Fames Vacuum Brake Co., 44 Fed. 64; Ballard v. McCluskey, 58 Fed. 880.

The question of costs having been determined in favor of the defendant, the court can see no reason for entering upon a discussion and analysis of the claims not included in the decree. Cui bono? The course adopted by the complainant in withdrawing these claims has frequently been pursued in other cases in this circuit. It is [887]*887thought that this practice should be encouraged in this cause particularly. As the decree now stands the air is cleared and the issue very much simplified by the withdrawal of these claims. The court and counsel are relieved from a tedious and inconsequential investigation which in no event could place the defendant in any better position tha n it now is. The complainant does not recover costs and the defendant is relieved from all liability on account of the withdrawn claims as fully as if they were declared invalid by the court.

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

COXE, District Judge.

As to costs. Four of the claims were withdrawn at the argument on intimation by the court that the question of invention as to .them was exceedingly doubtful. The court decided, as to three others, that the defendant did not infringe. Fourteen claims are not included in the decree, presumably for the reason, as to some of them at least, that they are thought to be for the same invention as those which are included. The defendant has been put to the trouble and expense of defending all of these claims, those withdrawn and not infringed equally with the others. In these circumstances the rule in this circuit is well settled that the complainant is not entitled to costs. Adams v. Howard, 22 Blatchf. 47, 19 Fed. 317; Hayes v. Bickelhoupt, 21 Fed. 566; Yale & G. Manuf’g Co. v. North, 5 Blatchf. 455, Fed. Cas. No. 18,323; Steam Trap Co. v. Felthousen, 20 Fed. 633; Tyler v. Galloway, 20 Blatchf. 445, 12 Fed. 567; Edison Electric Light Co. v. Electric Engineering & Supply Co., 60 Fed. 401; Electrical Accumulator Co. v. Julien Electric Co., 38 Fed. 117; Campbell Printing-Press & Manuf’g Co. v. Fames Vacuum Brake Co., 44 Fed. 64; Ballard v. McCluskey, 58 Fed. 880.

The question of costs having been determined in favor of the defendant, the court can see no reason for entering upon a discussion and analysis of the claims not included in the decree. Cui bono? The course adopted by the complainant in withdrawing these claims has frequently been pursued in other cases in this circuit. It is [887]*887thought that this practice should be encouraged in this cause particularly. As the decree now stands the air is cleared and the issue very much simplified by the withdrawal of these claims. The court and counsel are relieved from a tedious and inconsequential investigation which in no event could place the defendant in any better position tha n it now is. The complainant does not recover costs and the defendant is relieved from all liability on account of the withdrawn claims as fully as if they were declared invalid by the court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 F. 886, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 3289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomson-houston-electric-co-v-elmira-h-ry-co-circtndny-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack