CHARLES J. GAYLER AND LEONARD BROWN, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
BENJAMIN G. WILDER
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.
Gayler and Brown sought to reopen a judgment affirmed by the Supreme Court on the grounds that material evidence had been omitted from the bill of exceptions in the record. The Court denied the motion, holding that once a case has been argued and judgment rendered, it is too late to amend the bill of exceptions or introduce new evidence, and that any such corrections should have been sought through timely application for certiorari before judgment was pronounced.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court.
This case was argued early in the present term, and the judgment of the Circuit Court affirmed.
A-motion is now made to open the judgment for the purpose of amending the bill of exceptions and rehearing the case, upon the ground that material evidence offered by the plaintiffs in error, which might have influenced the judgment of this court, has been omitted in the bill of exceptions contained in the record.
If any error or' mistake was -committed in framing this exception, it might undoubtedly have been corrected by a certiorari, if the application had been made in due time and upon sufficient cause. But this application is too late, even if the evidence which .the plaintiffs in error propose to introduce would have influenced the decision. We by no means intend to say that it would have done so. But they rested satisfied with the exception as it stood; made no objection to it here; and argued the case and awaited the judgment of the court upon the evidence as stated in the exception. After that judgment has been pronounced, it is too late to say that the statement was imperfect or erroneous, and to make a new case by the introduction of new evidence, and a new exception.
The motion is therefore overruled.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dunlop Holdings Ltd. v. RAM Golf Corp., 524 F.2d 33 (7th Cir. 1975)…ed” the invention within the meaning of § 102(g). Since 1850 it has been settled that a patentee may be entitled to credit for making a new discovery or invention even though someone else actually made the discovery before he did. Gayler v. Wilder, 10 How. 509, 51 U.S. 477, 13 L.Ed. 504. That case established the proposition that an abandoned invention will not defeat the patentability of the rediscovery of “lost art.”8 The case has [*36] also been cited for the proposition that an inventor who had merely…
-
Eickmeyer v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 580 F.2d 395 (10th Cir. 1978)…statement: Any assignment or transfer, short of one of these, is a mere license, giving the licensee no title in the patent, and no right to sue at law in his own name for an infringement. Rev.Stat. § 4919; Gayler v. Wilder, 10 How. 477, 494, 495 [13 L.Ed. 517]; Moore v. Marsh, 7 Wall. 515 [19 L.Ed. 37]. In equity, as at law, when the transfer amounts to a license only, the title remains in the owner of the patent; and suit must be brought in his name, and never in the name of the licensee alone, unless t…