ELASTIC FABRICS COMPANY
v.
SMITH

U.S. | 1879-10-01
100 U.S. 110 Supreme Court of the United States (1879) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 25 L. Ed. 547 · 1879 U.S. LEXIS 1811 · SCDB 1879-012
Cited by 26 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

In a patent infringement dispute, the Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decree that sustained the validity of Smith's patent but awarded him no damages or profits because the patent had expired before the suit concluded, leaving the case moot except as to costs. The Court held that since no appeal lies from a decree concerning only costs and expenses, it would affirm the lower court's judgment without examining the merits of the case.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice Waite

Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.

For all practical purposes, except costs, the appellant was successful in the court below. While the validity of the appellee’s patent was sustained, it was a fruitless victory to him, because the patent expired before the determination of the suit, and the court found that he was not entitled to recover from the appellant either profits or damages. As the decree stands, it sustains an-expired patent, and does no more. When it was rendered against him, the appellant was left at liberty to use the patented machine in any way he chose, and-he has not been required to pay any thing for the use he made of it while the patent was in force. The appeal, therefore, presents only a moot case except as to costs.

We think the disclaimer as to the reissued patent, division B, had no effect on the costs in this case, because the question presented for decision was whether, notwithstanding that disclaimer, the other divisions of the reissue should be sustained. The statute as to costs after a disclaimer (Rev. Stat., sect. 4922), therefore, has no application to this suit, and the appeal is practically reduced to the single question whether, if the decree below should be reversed, the appellee ought to have his costs in that court, and, if so, how much. No appeal lies from a mere decree respecting costs and expenses. Canter v. The American and Ocean Insurance Companies, 3 Pet. 307. As this case comes within the reason of that rule, we affirm the decree below without examining the merits.

Decree affirmed

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (12 total)

  • Newton v. Consol. Gas Co. of N.Y., 265 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1924)
    …neral rule, an appeal does not lie from a decree solely for costs, and if an appeal on the merits be taken and affirmed, it will not be reversed on a question of costs. Canter v. American Insurance Co., 3 Pet. 307, 319; Elastic Fabrics Co. v. Smith, 100 U. S. 110, 112; Paper-Bag [*83] Cases, 105 U. S. 766, 772; City Bank of Fort Worth v. Hunter, 152 U. S. 512, 516; Stuart v. Boulware, 133 U. S. 78; Du Bois v. Kirk, 158 U. S. 58, 67; Citizens’ Bank v. Cannon, 164 U. S. 319, 323; Wingert v. First National Bank…
  • Russell v. Farley, 105 U.S. 433 (U.S. 1881)
    …neither party as against the other is entitled to costs or damages. That an appeal does not lie from a decree in equity as to the costs merely, is well settled. Canter v. American & Ocean Insurance Co., 3 Pet. 307; Elastic Fabrics Company v. Smith, 100 U. S. 110. But it is contended by the appellant that the Circuit Court had no power to decree that he was not entitled to damages, thereby precluding him from recovering damages on the.injunction bond; and, if' it had any power to make a decree on the subject…
  • Du Bois v. Kirk, 158 U.S. 58 (U.S. 1895)
    …that an appeal does not lie from a decree for costs; and. if an appeal be. taken from a decree upon the merits, and such decree be affirmed with respect to the merits, it will not be reversed upon the question of costs. Elastic Fabrics Co. v. Smith, 100 U. S. 110, 112; Paper Bag Machine Cases, 105 U. S. 766, 772; Wood v. Weimar, 104 U. S. 786, 792; Russell v. Farley, 105 U. S. 433, 437. The decree of $he court below is, therefore, Affirmed. Mr. Justice Field dissented. Mr. Justice Shibas took no part in…

Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw