ROEMER
v.
BERNHEIM

U.S. | 1889-11-11
No. 52
132 U.S. 103 Supreme Court of the United States (1889) Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 33 L. Ed. 277 · 10 S. Ct. 12 · SCDB 1889-013 · 1889 U.S. LEXIS 1846
Cited by 59 cases
Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Gray,

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.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (17 total)

  • Wayne United Gas Co. v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co., 300 U.S. 131 (U.S. 1937)
    …282 U. S. 304; and eases cited in Note 8. Brockett v. Brockett, 2 How. 238; Steines v. Franklin County, 14 Wall. 15; Hardin v. Boyd, 113 U. S. 756; Boesch v. Graff, 133 U. S. 697; San Pedro Co. v. United States, 146 U. S. 120. Roemer v. Bernheim, 132 U. S. 103, 106; Morse v. United States, 270 U. S. 151, 154; Clarke v. Hot Springs Elec. L. & P. Co., 76 F. (2d) 918, 921. In re Stearns & White Co., 295 Fed. 833; Bonner v. Potterf, 47 F. (2d) 852, 855; United States v. East, 80 F. (2d) 134, 135. Compare As…
  • Adkins v. Child's. Hosp. of the Dist. of Columbia, 261 U.S. 525 (U.S. 1923)
  • Pfister v. N. Ill. Fin. Corp., 317 U.S. 144 (U.S. 1942)
    …using to modify the original. An appeal does not lie from [*150] the denial of a petition for rehearing. Conboy v. First National Bank, 203 U. S. 141, 145; Bowman v. Loperena, 311 U. S. 262, 266; Brockett v. Brockett, 2 How. 238; Roemer v. Bernheim, 132 U. S. 103; Jones v. Thompson, 128 F. 2d 888; Missouri v. Todd, 122 F. 2d 804. On the other hand, where out of time petitions for rehearing are filed and the referee or court merely considers whether the petition sets out, and the facts — if any are offered —…

Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw