VOORHEES
v.
JOHN T. NOYE MANUFACTURING COMPANY
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.
A patent infringement case heard in federal circuit court based on diverse citizenship of the parties had its appeal dismissed because the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over such diversity cases was eliminated by statute on March 3, 1891, and the appeal bond was not filed until April 1892, well after the July 1, 1891 deadline for preserving appeals in diversity cases that was established in the transitional legislation. The Court held that any new appeal from the circuit court's denial of the motion for rehearing would have had to be taken to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit rather than to the Supreme Court.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The Chief Justice:
The decree in this cause was entered on January 7, 1891, at the November term, 1890, of the .Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska, and at its foot the court minuted : “Lucas A. Yoorhees prays an appeal, which is allowed;” and also, “L. A. Yoorhees has leave to file motion for rehearing Saturday.” On the tenth of January, which was the Saturday following, the appliea-tion of L. A. Yoorkee_ for rehearing was filed.
It appears of record that on January 9,1892, at the November,1891, term of the court, “this cause coming on to be heard this day on the motion for rehearing filed herein, was argued and submitted to the court by solicitors. for the respective parties; whereupon the court takes the same under consideration.” On February 3, 1892, at the January term, 1892, the record shows that the motion for rehearing of the cause “on its merits was reargued and submitted to the court by solicitors for the respective parties,” and taken under advisement.
February 17, 1892, at the same January term, the motion for rehearing was denied, the court holding that “ it is now too late to sustain said motion or to interfere with the. decree.” March 23, 1892, the refusal of certain defendants to join in an appeal was filed, which refusal was dated January 17, 1891. April 15, 1892, an appeal bond was given by Lucas A. Yoor-hees, conditioned for the prosecution of the appeal allowed January 7, 1891, approved by the court and filed April 18, 1892. The record was filed in this court, April 19,1892, certified by the clerk of the Circuit Court, April 5, 1892. The bond is certified to by the clerk of the Circuit Court under date, April 21, 1892. -
The jurisdiction of the court below depended solely upon the diverse citizenship of. the parties, and by the act of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 826, c. 517, the jurisdiction of this court in such, eases was taken away, although preserved by the joint, resolution of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 1115, as to pending cases and cases wherein the appeal should be taken before July 1, 1891. The appeal was allowed January 7, 1891, but the decree did not take final effect as of that date for the purposes of an appeal, nor until February 17,1892, because the application for rehearing was entertained by the court, filed within the time granted for that purpose, and not disposed of. until then. Aspen Mining &c. Co. v. Billings, 150 U. S. 31.
The appeal bond was hot given until April 15,1892, but the record was filed in this court April 19, 1892, which was one of the days of-'the October term, 1891, of this court. Notwithstanding this, however, and without considering the question as to whether this appeal was properly prosecuted, in respect of parties, within Hardee v. Wilson, 146 U. S. 179, we are of opinion that as. the Circuit Court had jurisdiction, and this court had not, long after July 1, 1891, the taking of a new appeal became necéssary upon the denial of the rehearing, and this could only be to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Cincinnati Safe & Lock Co. v. Grand Rapids Deposit Co., 146 U. S. 54.
Appeal .dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (37 total)
-
Wayne United Gas Co. v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co., 300 U.S. 131 (U.S. 1937)…289, 293; In re Lemmon & Gale Co., 112 Fed. 296, 300; Freed v. Central Trust Co., 215 Fed. 873, 876; In re Rochester Sanitarium & Baths Co., 222 Fed. 22, 26. Equity Rule 69; Aspen Mining Co. v. Billings, 150 U. S. 31, 36; Voorhees v. Noye Mjg. Co., 151 U. S. 135; Zimmern v. United States, 298 U. S. 167. United States v. Mayer, 235 U. S. 55; United States v. Benz, 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. 7…
-
Conboy v. First Nat'l Bank of Jersey City, 203 U.S. 141 (U.S. 1906)
-
Bowman v. Loperena, 311 U.S. 262 (U.S. 1940)…7,1934, c. 424, § 2,48 Stat/922, 923; 11 U. S. C. (1934) § 202. In re Bowman, 110 F. 2d 348. Morse v. United States, 270 U. S. 151, 153, 154; Wayne United Gas Co. v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co., 300 U. S. 131, 137. Voorhees v. John T. Noye Mfg. Co., 151 U. S. 135, 137; Gypsy Oil Co. v. Escoe, 275 U. S. 498, 499; Wayne United Gas Co. v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co., supra, 137, 138.…
Previewing 3 of 37 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Aspen Mining & Smelting Co. v. Billings, 150 U.S. 31 (U.S. 1893)
- Hardee v. Wilson, 146 U.S. 179 (U.S. 1892)
- Cincinnati Safe & Lock Co. v. Grand Rapids Safety Deposit Co., 146 U.S. 54 (U.S. 1892)