Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1824-01-03
therein mentioned" was read third time. pas

therein mentioned" was read third time, pas
se', and Sent 10 the Senate for concurrence.
COSTS IN SUITS FOR PATENT RIGHTS.
The eDgrossed Bill % concerning costs IN GER
lam cases." was read a third time.
Mr. Vance, of Ohio, had an objection to the
bill. As he understood the bill now To stand.
If II party, suing 10 the Courts Of the United
States. recovered only ten dollars, he would
be entitled to'costs; because the clerk Of the
court was ordered TO record Judgment of da-
images for three times the amount awarded by
the jury; and for the same reason, as the law
formerly stood, plaintiff recovering no more
than Sl60 was entitled TO costs, because the
damages we're 10 be entered AT treble the
mount. The gentleman from Massachusetts
had, indeed, otherwise stated the law, and he
was probably better acquainted with the law
than himself, yet such were his convictions
and, with this view of the practical operation
of the bill, he could view it as little else than
bill To aid individuals To impose upon the
public Such, at least, would he its effect in
the Western Country. That country, he said.
swatmed with persons protesting TO have pa
tent rights for aew discoveries. An instance
had not long ago occurred, of u man coming
into that country, and maintaining that hehsd
patent far wing gudgeuns, and succeeding
so Ear as to exact large sums of moHsy from
individuals, who were inundated by threat
oi IN. going tn law with them. Pass this law,
said he, and ,dventurers OF this kind will come
along with the law in their pocket, and threat
IN those On whom they practise their impo-
s'tions, Ia drag them from the extremity oi
Missouri, Illinois, SC In the Circuit Courts oi
the United States. No matter Il, when they
got them there, they should recover only Ten
dollars-the bill, as IL now stood, would give
them the costs of snit. Almost all the ligh,
machinery employed IN that region of country,
| Dir. said, Game from the Eastward The
articles we're c0nsi gned TO a merchant in some
intermediate town, Pitsburg er Wheeling
for example, and he sent them forward to a.
gents Ia the interior. There they We're pur-
lchased and used, and then comes along some
| man from the Eastward, claiming patent
| right To the artice--ihe user cannot trace the
person from whom the articles were procured
to the Eastward, and, dreading a suit, prefers
la pay the unjust demand of a mere adven-
turrr. AS an instance of which, he cited the
case of Woods patent Plough, which wa:
much used in the prairies of the Mississippi
and which had given Occas,onto great abuse.
of this description. No law could be better
cacua;'d TO encourage litigation, he thought
than this.
Mr.. Wright said, tina, he was in favor of the
bill, as originally reported in its present form
ne should be opposed 10 It's passage. BY tn,
act OF 1855 where $500 ar more was sued foi
In the u. s. Courts, and less than $500 re-
l covered, no costs werr allowed But the case
now 10 De provided for rests on a different
principle. A u costs. he said. are matter o!
special legislation, being. he believed, unknown
to the common law. They ,Serr not allow ed
in suits under the patent law, because that
law provides, that judgment Sall be given
| ioT Three tunes the amount of the verdict OBJ
tanned This provision of the existing law.
he considered IA full equivalent for costs
anu s';'5cicnt security Ia the rights of the
patentee. lie thought that reduction of the
minimum ofdsmages, On which costs are re-
roverable, would have Tendency to multiply
! law suits. II had been said that suitors un.
der the patent laws were compelled 10 have
resort To the Courts of the Uuitpd States as
| they could sue no where else He conceived
| The law To he otherwise He believed that
the United States Courts had not exclusive
hut only concurrent jurisdiction. in cases OF
this description. DouhI!rss, the subject q
allowing costs bad been within the view 81
congress when the original act was passed
and why We're costs not then allowed ? For
the reason he had siated--the triple amour
| OF the verdict being allowed in lien ofthem.-
Besides, IN nlost cases, the damages assessed
| did not go tO the original patentpe, they wen
\
mrnt from him. Such persons abounded
they literally swarmed, in some parts--ven.
ding patent rights had become perfect trade
| They impose upon the ignorant, and threaten
the tiinid till they often succeed in fleeing
| hoth. Sometimes however, they meet witt
an individual Of sterner stuff, who consents {,
! abide suit hut he does not know wheihe,
the patent is valid or not--and, in the issue
he Is cnst-danlages are awarded against him
-ihe law treblrs those damages, and now
costs are to be superaddcd to all the rest
BE hoped the bill, at least, IN its present shape
would not pass and he therefore moved
that II he recommItted to the Committee on
the Judiciary, with instructions To restore j
to ITS first fnrm, by altering the minimum o
damages on which costs should be allowed
from So to 500.
| The question being taken on this motor
without further debate, j, passed in the afr.
native, and the bill was rccommit,ed accur.
dinghy.
1