H. C. COOK COMPANY
v.
BEECHER
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.
H. C. Cook Company, a Connecticut corporation holding a patent for fingernail clippers, sued two Connecticut residents who were directors of another Connecticut corporation that had infringed the patent, seeking to hold them personally liable for a judgment already obtained against their company. The Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the suit, holding that the complaint was an impermissible attempt to enforce a judgment against the corporation's directors rather than a direct patent infringement action, and that any obligation of Connecticut directors to pay their corporation's judgment was not a matter subject to federal circuit court jurisdiction between citizens of the same state.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court.
This case comes here on the single question of the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, certified from the court below. 172 Fed. Rep. 166. The judge dismissed the complaint of his own motion, and the defendants in error confine themselves to the suggestion that for that reason the judgment should be reversed at the cost of the plaintiff in error, concurring in the argument that the judgment was wrong. As we are of opinion that the judgment' was right it will be unnecessary to consider that point.
The suit is brought by a Connecticut corporation-against residents' of Connecticut. We give an abridgment of the com plaint. . The plaintiff is the owner of a patent for fingernail clippérs. The defendants during the time of the' acts complained of were. directors in control of another Connecticut corporation, The Little River Manufacturing Company. This . company infringed the patent, and the plaintiff brought a suit in equity, against it in the same Circuit Court, which, ended iii a decree for-an injunction, $12,871 damages and $496.35 costs. The defendants voted to continue the salé of the infringing clipper pending the suit, and also voted and caused tó b.e executed a bond of indemnity from their company to the selling agent against liability for the sale. As directors and as individuals they authorized and brought about such sales, and they directed the defense of the equity suit. In consequence of the expenditures to the foregoing ends their company' became and is insolvent, and the defendants' knew' that that would be the result of a judgment against it, but. did the acts alleged for the purpose of increasing the value of their stock in the company, and of receiving the profits' and dividends that, might be received from the sale.
The plaintiff’s argument is that the defendants and their corporation were joint tort-feasors, and that this is a suit-against the defendants for their part in infringing its patent, the judgment against their co-trespasser not having been satisfied. It is. unnecessary to speculate whether this is an afterthought-or!whether the complaint was framed with intentional ambiguity, so that if one cause of action failed another might be extracted from the allegations, or what the explanation may be. But the present ini erpretation is not the nat-' ural interpretation of the complaint The natural interpretation is that which was given to it by the court below; that it is an attempt to make the defendants answerable for the judgment already obtained. There was no other reason for alleging that judgment with such detail, while on the other hand .the patent now supposed to be the foundation .of the claim is not set forth. The judge was fully warranted in taking this not to be a suit upon a patent,' Indeed it would seem from bis opinion that one of the grounds of jurisdiction urged before him' was that this is an action ancillary to the judgment in the former suit, which of course it is hot, any more than Stillman v. Combe, 197 U. S. 436; but the argument recognized, that the, former judgment-was the foundation of the present case. Apart from that contention, there can be no question that, as the judge below said, if the directors áre under obligations by-Connecticut law to pay a judgment against' their corporation, that is not a matter that can be litigated between citizens of the same State in the Circuit Court of the United States. The only argument attempted here is that which we have stated-and have decided not to be open on the'complaint. '
Judgment affirmed,
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Peacock v. Thomas, 516 U.S. 349 (U.S. 1996)…be modified. Nevertheless, the Court’s central holding that the District Court had no power to grant any relief against petitioner is inconsistent with Riggs and Labette. I am also persuaded that the Court’s reliance on H. C. Cook Co. v. Beecher, 217 U. S. 497 (1910), is misplaced. The theory of the complaint against the directors of the judgment debtor in that case was that they were “joint trespassers,” equally liable for the patent infringement. That theory was comparable to the claim against this peti…1 / 3
-
Argento v. Vill. OF Melrose Park, 838 F.2d 1483 (7th Cir. 1988)…100 years since Root was decided, ancillary jurisdiction has been greatly expanded by the courts. See C.A. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1444 at 219-220 (1971). The dissent, on the other hand, relies on H.C. Cook Co. v. Beecher, 217 U.S. 497, 30 S.Ct. 601, 54 L.Ed. 855 (1910). That case, decided over 75 years ago, is three paragraphs long containing a conclusion, but virtually no discussion. It has rarely been cited as precedent. Instead we rely on more recent and more complete explicat…1 / 3
-
Skevofilax v. Sergeant William Quigley, 810 F.2d 378 (3d Cir. 1987)…heir action pending in New Jersey court to enforce the collective bargaining agreement's indemnity clause. . The township finds support for its proposed limitation of the district court’s judgment enforcement powers in H.C. Cook Company v. Beecher, 217 U.S. 497, 30 S.Ct. 601, 54 L.Ed. 855 (1910). That opinion, by Justice Holmes, is a typically delphic pronouncement. It states the result, but not the reasons for that result. Justice Holmes probably intended the opinion to be an interpretation of the then-go…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Stillman v. Combe, 197 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1905)