WOOD-PAPER COMPANY
v.
HEFT
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 suit brought by the Wood-Paper Company against defendants including Heft became moot when the company purchased the patents at issue and the patent owners acquired a financial interest in the company, resulting in both sides of the litigation being controlled by the same parties with aligned interests. The Supreme Court granted a motion to dismiss the case, holding that a lawsuit cannot proceed when the plaintiff and defendant share identical interests and control both sides of the dispute, particularly where the outcome would affect third parties whose rights depend on an impartial adjudication.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.
The case, as it now stands, is this: The complainauts having purchased in the patents under which the suit was defended, own both sides of the subject-matter of this litigation ; and, further, the owuers of the Dixon patents having taken, in consideration for the sale, stock in the complainants’. company, their interest has been transferred .to the side of the complainants.
It is • said) notwithstanding all these negotiations, exchanges, and transfers, the damages for the alleged infringement in the bill have not been compromised. But,, before that question can be reached, as the bill was dismissed below, this court must hear and determine the question on the iher-its, whether or not the defences set up in the answer are sustained upon the proofs. If the court should determine they wore not, then the .question of damages would arise; if otherwise, not. Now, upon this question of merits, the complainants own both sides of the litigation, and control them ; and, in the language of the Chief Justice, in the case of Lord v. Veuzie,
*
“the plaintiff and defendant have the same interest, and that interest adverse, and in conflict with the interest of third persons, whose rights would be seriously affected, if the. question of law was decided in the manner that both parties to this suit desire it to be.” And, for this reason, the case should not be heard by this court.
If anything further was necessary to show that the litigation-is no longer a real one; even if the Suit should proceed, and the question of damages be reached, there would be the same interest on, both sides, Dixon, one of the defendants,-since the sale of his patents, having a large interest on the side of the cofnplainants, and, as defendant, would be subject to bis payment of part, o» the whole amount, of the damages recovered. Indeed, the weight of the proofs is, that he has bound himself to keep his co-defendants harmless.
The motion to dismiss the case, for the reasons above given, must be Granted.
*
8 Howard, 255.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
POE v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (U.S. 1961)…t is needed before the judicial mill could turn. Third: This is not a feigned, hypothetical, friendly or colorable suit such as discloses “a want of a truly adversary [*529] contest.” Clearly these cases are not analogous to Wood-Paper Co. v. Heft, 8 Wall. 333, or South Spring Hill Gold Mining Co. v. Amador Medean Gold Mining Co., 145 U. S. 300, where prior to consideration the controversy in effect became moot by the merger of the two contesting interests. Nor is there any question of collusion as in Lor…1 / 2
-
Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651 (U.S. 1895)…cuted a release of his right to appeal; Elwell v. Fosdick, 134 U. S. 500; or when the rights of both parties, had come-under the control of the same persons; Lord v. Veazie, 8 How. 251; Cleveland v. Chamberlain, 1 Black, 419; Wood Paper Co. v. Heft, 8 Wall. 333; East Tennessee Railroad v. Southern Telegraph Co., 125 U. S. 695; South Spring Co. v. Amador Co., 145 U. S. 300; or when the matter had been compromised and settled between the parties; Dakota County v. Glidden, 113. U. S. 222; or ¡when, pending a…
-
California v. San Pablo & Tulare R.R. Co., 149 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1893)…ot be distinguished in principle from previous cases in which writs of error have been dismissed by this court under similar or analogous circumstances. Lord v. Veazie, 8 How. 251, 255; Cleveland v. Chamberlain, 1 Black, 419; Wood Paper Co. v. Heft, 8 Wall. 333; San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 116 U. S. 138; Little v. Bowers, 134 U. S. 547; Singer Manuf. Co. v. Wright, 141 U. S. 696. See also Elgin v. Marshall, 106 U. S. 578. Writ of error dismissed.…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence