CARY MANUFACTURING COMPANY
v.
ACME FLEXIBLE CLASP 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.
Acme Flexible Clasp Company sued Cary Manufacturing Company for patent infringement, obtained a judgment of validity and infringement, and then sought contempt sanctions when Cary violated the resulting injunction; the Supreme Court dismissed Cary's writ of error, holding that the Circuit Court of Appeals' judgment affirming the contempt fine was final and unreviewable because patent law judgments from that court are made final by statute, and a party cannot bypass direct appeal to the Supreme Court by first appealing to the Circuit Court of Appeals and then seeking review.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Fullee delivered the opinion of the court.
The Acme Flexible Clasp Company brought suit in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of ]STew York against the Cary Manufacturing Company for alleged infringement of letters patent No. 314,204, granted to W. O. Swétt, March 17, 1885, for a staple fastener for wooden vessels, wliich went to a decree sustaining the validity of the patent and adjudging the Cary Manufacturing Company to have infringed it. 96 Fed. Pep. 344. Defendant appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the decree was affirmed. 101 Fed. Hep. 269. Proceedings in contempt were subsequently commenced by the Acme Company to punish the alleged violation of the injunction issued under the decree, and the Circuit Court imposed a fine of $2000 for contempt, to be paid to the clerk of the court, one half of the sum to be paid to the Acme Company and one half to be paid to the United States. The Cary Company sued out a writ of error from the Circuit Court of Appeals to review this judgment, and the judgment was affirmed. 108 Fed. Pep. 873. Thereupon this writ of error was allowed.
It is apparent that the writ of error cannot be maintained, as the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals was final. Judgments and decrees of those courts in all cases arising under the patent laws and under the criminal laws are made final by section six of the judiciary act of March 3, 1891. Although if is insisted that the judgment imposing the fine was a final judgment in a criminal matter, it is argued that it involved the denial of constitutional rights, and hence that this court has jurisdiction under section five of that act; but it is settled that even if a party might be entitled to come directly to this court under that section, yet if he does not do so, and carries his case to the Circuit Court of Appeals, he must abide by the judgment of that court. Robinson v. Caldwell, 165 U. S. 359; American Sugar Refining Company v. New Orleans, 181 U. S. 277; Huguley Manufacturing Company v. Caleton Cotton Mills, 184 U. S. 290; Ayres v. Polsdorfer, p. 585, post.
Wi'it of error dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (25 total)
-
Bessette v. W. B. Conkey Co., 194 U.S. 324 (U.S. 1904)…5, act of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 826, c. 517, as amended.by the act of January 20, 1897, 29 Stat. 492, c. 68; Chetwood’s Case, 165 U. S. 443, 462; Tinsley v.. Anderson, 171 U. S. 101, 105; Cary Manufacturing Company v. Acme Flexible Clasp Company, 187 U. S. 427, 428.” In In re Watts and Sachs, 190 U, S. 1, the petitioners having been found guilty of a contempt of court by the District Court [*335] of Indiana, applied for a writ of habeas, corpus. We issued with that writ a certiorari and brought the entir…
-
W. Union Tel. Co. v. The State of Kan. Ex rel. Coleman, 216 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1910)
-
Toledo Newspaper Co. v. United States, 247 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1918)…ust prevail since it is settled that a conviction for a criminal, although summary, contempt is-for the purposes of our reviewing power a matter of criminal law not within our jurisdiction on error. Cary Manufacturing Co. v. Acme Flexible Clasp Co., 187 U. S. 427, 428; O’Neal v. United States, 190 U. S. 36, 38; Bessette v. W. B. Conkey [*411] Co., 194 U. S. 324, 335; In re Merchants' Stock & Grain Co., 223 U. S. 639; Gompers v. United States, 233 U. S. 604, 606. But this does not relieve us from the duty of…
Previewing 3 of 25 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Am. Sugar Ref. Co. v. New Orleans, 181 U.S. 277 (U.S. 1901)
- Robinson v. Caldwell, 165 U.S. 359 (U.S. 1897)
- Huguley Mfg. Co. v. Galeton Cotton Mills, 184 U.S. 290 (U.S. 1902)