Page images
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

McCoon, Silsbury v.


S McGregor v. Comstock,

408 McFarlan v. Watson, .

286 Mayhew, Dudley v...

9 St. Peter's Church, De Ruyter V... 238 Mann v. Pentz, 415 Schroeppell v. Shaw,.

446 Marfield v. Goodhue, 62 Selden, Cromwell v..

253 Mason v. Jones,..

v. Vermilya,

525 Mayor, &c. of New York, Hal

Seneca Co. Bank v. Neass, 442 stead v...... 430 Shannon, Baskins v.....


446 Mayor, &c. of New-York, Pack v. 489 Shaw, Schroeppell v.... Mersereau v. Ryerss,.

v. Tobias,...

188 Messerve v. Sutton,..

546 Sheffield, Cowperthwaite v.. 243 Metcalf v. Van Benthuysen,. 424 Silsbury v. McCoon,

379 Minturn v. Farmers' Loan and

Sisson, Culver v.....

264 Trust Co.... 498 Smith v. Kerr,


41 Moody, Gillet

479 Staples v. Fairchild, Myer, Howland v.... 290 Sutton, Messerve v.


[blocks in formation]


Nash, Kinney v..

177 Thompson v. Blanchard,. Neass, Seneca Co. Bank v... 442

Veltman v. Newell, Dwight v..

185 Tobias, Shaw v... New Hope and Delaware Bridge Trustees of Lockport, Buel v. Co. v. Phenix Bank,..

156 Turner v. Roby, Northern Railroad Co. Duane v... 5451 Tuttle, Powell v..

335 438 188 197 193 396


Veltman v. Thompson, .
Vermilya, Selden V..........

Union Bank, Bank of Commerce v. 230

v. Coster's Executors, 203 Upton, Carroll v.....




Wakeman v. Prico,.........
Warner, Langley V............

Watson, McFarlan V......
Van Benthuysen, Metcalf v....... 424 Wesson v. Chamberlain,.
Van Schaick, Hone V............

538 | Williams v. Hutchinson,

334 397 26 331 319

[blocks in formation]

The courts of this state have no jurisdiction to entertain a suit instituted to restrain

the infringement of a patent right. Nor will jurisdiction be entertained, although the defendant stipulate in the

cause not to raise the objection. Consent can not confer such jurisdiction. Under the constitution and laws of the United States, the federal courts have ex

clusive jurisdiction in cases of infringement of patent rights. At common law and independent of the act of congress, authors and inventors ac:

quire no exclusive right to the benefit of their writings and discoveries. Where a statute confers a right and prescribes adequate means of protecting it,

the proprietor of the right is confined to the statutory remedy. Per Strong, J. But where the statute creating the right omits to provide against its infringement

the remedy may be pursued at large by any appropriate action or proceeding.

APPEAL from the supreme court. In December, 1837, letters patent were issued by the government of the United States to Jonathan G. Hathaway, for “a new and improved mode of applying heat to cooking stoves.” In March, 1840, the com plainant Dudley, through several intermediate assignments, became the owner of the patent for the county of Erie, in the state Vol. III.


Dudley v. Mayhew.

of New York, and in 1842 he filed the bill in this cause before the vice chancellor of the eighth circuit, against the defendant Mayhew, for the purpose of restraining him from manufacturing and selling the stove which was the subject of the patent in the said county of Erie. A preliminary injunction was granted by the vice chancellor which the defendant moved to dissolve. The motion was denied, and on appeal to the chancellor, the decision of the vice chancellor was affirmed.

The defendant pleaded to the bill of complaint that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, but after being set down for argument, the plea was withdrawn, the defendant stipulating not to raise the question of jurisdiction in the cause. He then answered the bill. The complainant replied and proofs were taken. The vice chancellor having heard the cause on pleadings and proofs, sustained the bill and decreed a perpetual injunction. The defendant appealed to the chancellor, and pending the appeal, the cause became vested in the supreme court organized under the new constitution; and that court, sitting in the eighth district, reversed the decree of the vice chancellor and dismissed the bill. The complainant appealed to this court. On the argument in this court as well as in the courts below, the jurisdictional question, among others, was raised, notwithstanding the stipulation.

S. G. Havens, for appellant, cited Const. U. S. art. 3, số 1, 2; Judiciary Act of 1789, $$ 9, 11, 13, 25; Delafield v. The State of Indiana, (2 Hill, 159;) 3 Story on the Const. 624; 17 John. 5; 2 Kent's Com. 367, 368; Gibson v. Woodworth, (8 Paige, 132 ;) Burrall v. Jewett, (2 id. 134;) Clark v. Smith, (13 Peters, 203;) 9 Law Rep. 493 ; Osborne v. Bank of The United States, (9 Wheat. 738 ;) Livingston v. Van Ingen, (1 Paine's C. C. Rep. 45;) 3 Story on the Const. 1147, and cases cited ; 1 Chit. Plead. 159, Springfield ed.; 2 id. 764, and cases cited ; Phillips on Patents, 382; 9 John. 507, and cases cited ; Borden v. Crocker, (10 Pick. 383 ;) Beckford v. Hood, (7 T. R. 620;) King v. Harris, (4 id. 205;) Castle's case, (Cro. Jac. 644.)

« PreviousContinue »