GEORGE
v.
VICTOR TALKING MACHINE CO.

U.S. | 1934-12-17
No. 128
293 U.S. 377 Supreme Court of the United States (1934) Caution
Also reported at: 55 S. Ct. 229 · 79 L. Ed. 439 · 1934 U.S. LEXIS 32 · SCDB 1934-034
Cited by 80 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

The District Court granted an injunction and ordered an accounting of profits in a copyright infringement suit after finding that the plaintiff-author's common law property rights in a song had been violated. The Supreme Court reversed the Circuit Court of Appeals' reversal of the District Court's decree because the appeal to the Circuit Court was filed outside the time period prescribed by law, depriving that court of jurisdiction to hear the case.

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

Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

Review was limited to the question of the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of Appeals. The suit was brought for the infringement of the common law right of property in a song, and the bill sought an accounting of profits made by the defendant. The District Court sustained the plaintiff's right as author and found infringement. Decree was entered granting an injunction and appointing a special master to take and state an account of profits and to report to the court, with the usual provisions for exceptions to the report. The decree was interlocutory. The Palmyra, 10 Wheat. 502; Perkins v. Fowrniquet, 6 How. 206, 208, 209; Craighead v. Wilson, 18 How. 199, 202 (explaining Forgay v. Conrad, 6 How. 201); Beebe v. Russell, 19 How. 283, 287; Humiston v. Stainthorp, 2 Wall. 106; Keystone Manganese Co. v. Martin, 132 U. S. 91, 93, 97; McGourkey v. Toledo & Ohio Central Ry. Co., 146 U. S. 536, 547; Guarantee Co. v. Mechanics’ Savings Bank & Trust Co., 173 U. S. 582, 586; Simmons Co. v. Grier Brothers Co., 258 U. S. 82, 89. The decree was entered on March 31, 1933, and the appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals was not taken until May 18, 1933. The Circuit Court of Appeals entertained the appeal and reversed the decree of the District Court. As the appeal was not taken within the time prescribed by law, the Circuit Court of Appeals was without jurisdiction. Jud. Code, § 129, 28 U. S. C. 227. The decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to that court with directions to dismiss the appeal.

Reversed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (23 total)

  • Browder v. Dir., Dep't of Corr. of Ill., 434 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1978)
    …v. United States, 378 U. S. 139 (1964); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U. S. 438, 442 (1962); United States v. Schaefer Brewing Co., 356 U. S. 227 (1958); Matton Steamboat Co. v. Murphy, 319 U. S. 412, 415 (1943); George v. Victor Talking Mach. Co., 293 U. S. 377, 379 (1934). The purpose of the rule is clear: It is “to set a definite point of time when litigation shall be at an end, unless within that time the prescribed application has been made; and if it has not, to advise prospective appellees that they…
  • Baltimore Contractors, Inc. v. Bodinger, 348 U.S. 176 (U.S. 1955)
    …ourt has developed the rationale for determining the appealability of such an interlocutory order as this under § 1292 and its predecessors. The appealability of routine interlocutory injunctive orders raised few questions. See George v. Victor Co., 293 U. S. 377. There the statute was clear. It was when stays of proceedings, in distinction to injunctions, were appealed that the issue of jurisdiction became sharp. In Enelow v. New York Life Ins. Co., 293 U. S. 379, a case arising when federal courts had acti…
  • Deckert v. Independence Shares Corp., 311 U.S. 282 (U.S. 1940)
    …. & S. Job & Co., 252 U. S. 521; Cyclopedia of Federal Procedure, Vol. 5, § 2608. An order of reference to a master is generally interlocutofy and not appealable, at least if'not for a mere ministerial purpose: George v. Victor Talking Machine Co., 293 U. S. 377. See Latta v. Kilbourn, 150 U. S. 524; McGourkey v. Toledo & Ohio Central Ry. Co., 146 U. S. 536; Hill v. Chicago & Evanston R. Co., 140 U. S. 52; Beebe v. Russell, 19 How. 283; Craighead v. Wilson, 18 How. 199; Forgay v. Conrad, 6 How. 201; Cyclope…

Previewing 3 of 23 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