Wood-Paper Company v. Heft

Supreme Court

Wood-Paper Company v. Heft

75 U.S. 333, 19 L. Ed. 379, 8 Wall. 333, 1868 U.S. LEXIS 1107

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedNovember 18, 1869

StatusPublished

Cited by53 cases

This text of 75 U.S. 333 (Wood-Paper Company v. Heft) 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

Wood-Paper Company v. Heft, 75 U.S. 333, 19 L. Ed. 379, 8 Wall. 333, 1868 U.S. LEXIS 1107 (1869).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice NELSON

delivered the opinion of the court.

The case, as it now stands, is this: The complainauts having purchased in the patents under which the suit was defended, own both sides of the subject-matter of this litigation ; and, further, the owuers of the Dixon patents having taken, in consideration for the sale, stock in the complainants’. company, their interest has been transferred .to the side of the complainants.

It is • said) notwithstanding all these negotiations, exchanges, and transfers, the damages for the alleged infringement in the bill have not been compromised. But,, before that question can be reached, as the bill was dismissed below, this court must hear and determine the question on the iher-its, whether or not the defences set up in the answer are sustained upon the proofs. If the court should determine they wore not, then the .question of damages would arise; if otherwise, not. Now, upon this question of merits, the complainants own both sides of the litigation, and control them ; and, in the language of the Chief Justice, in the case of Lord v. Veuzie, * “the plaintiff and defendant have the same interest, and that interest adverse, and in conflict with the interest of third persons, whose rights would be seriously affected, if the. question of law was decided in the manner that both parties to this suit desire it to be.” And, for this reason, the case should not be heard by this court.

If anything further was necessary to show that the litigation-is no longer a real one; even if the Suit should proceed, and the question of damages be reached, there would be the same interest on, both sides, Dixon, one of the defendants,-since the sale of his patents, having a large interest on the side of the cofnplainants, and, as defendant, would be *337 subject to bis payment of part, o» the whole amount, of the damages recovered. Indeed, the weight of the proofs is, that he has bound himself to keep his co-defendants harmless.

The motion to dismiss the case, for the reasons above given, must be Granted.

*

8 Howard, 255.

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

Mr. Justice NELSON

delivered the opinion of the court.

The case, as it now stands, is this: The complainauts having purchased in the patents under which the suit was defended, own both sides of the subject-matter of this litigation ; and, further, the owuers of the Dixon patents having taken, in consideration for the sale, stock in the complainants’. company, their interest has been transferred .to the side of the complainants.

It is • said) notwithstanding all these negotiations, exchanges, and transfers, the damages for the alleged infringement in the bill have not been compromised. But,, before that question can be reached, as the bill was dismissed below, this court must hear and determine the question on the iher-its, whether or not the defences set up in the answer are sustained upon the proofs. If the court should determine they wore not, then the .question of damages would arise; if otherwise, not. Now, upon this question of merits, the complainants own both sides of the litigation, and control them ; and, in the language of the Chief Justice, in the case of Lord v. Veuzie, * “the plaintiff and defendant have the same interest, and that interest adverse, and in conflict with the interest of third persons, whose rights would be seriously affected, if the. question of law was decided in the manner that both parties to this suit desire it to be.” And, for this reason, the case should not be heard by this court.

If anything further was necessary to show that the litigation-is no longer a real one; even if the Suit should proceed, and the question of damages be reached, there would be the same interest on, both sides, Dixon, one of the defendants,-since the sale of his patents, having a large interest on the side of the cofnplainants, and, as defendant, would be *337 subject to bis payment of part, o» the whole amount, of the damages recovered. Indeed, the weight of the proofs is, that he has bound himself to keep his co-defendants harmless.

The motion to dismiss the case, for the reasons above given, must be Granted.

*

8 Howard, 255.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 U.S. 333, 19 L. Ed. 379, 8 Wall. 333, 1868 U.S. LEXIS 1107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wood-paper-company-v-heft-scotus-1869.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack