The national Republican., 1867-08-10
THE COURTR.

EQUITY C0URT-Cnf9 justice CARTIER
The court yesterday met at the usual hour, and
transacted the following business:
The Chief Justice gave, In writing, tho follow.
Ing opinions upon the patent cases presented TO
the court on Wednesday, and reported in our
issue Of yesterday.
Andrew whiteiey, assignee Of il jonathan Haino,
On appeal TO d. X. Cartier, Chiei Justice, Au.
gust 7, 1857. In the matter Of the application
Of Andrew Whiteloy for the reissue Of patent
for improvement in "harvostors, " issued to Jon.
ath.n Haines, September :, 1885, and reissusd
This case is heard and determined on motion
by ]. ]. Coombs, on behalf Of the Commissioner
Of Patents, TO dismiss the appeal for the reason
that Andrew Whteley, on the 11th day Of Feb.
ruary, 1867. and pending this application, AZ.
signed all his right and title and interest in said
patents to Whiteley, Fessler, and Kelly and that
on the 18th day Of March, 1867, they iWhiteley.
Fessler, and Kelly assigned all their right title,
and interest to Jonathan Haines, since which
time tho assignee has filed au application In bis
own name for the reissue OF said patent, which
application Is now pending. This motion raises
for my consideration the question whether An.
drew Whiteley, In whose name. the application
for reissue Is made, has such pending and present
interest In the subject Of investigation as to en-.
title him under the law to q reissue.
The statute regulating the subject and proyid.
ing for reissue among other things provides for
the surrender Of tho patent, out Of which the
reissue grows, at the time, and In the act Of re.
Issuing; leaving the title to tho patents thence
forward, In the Language OF the statute, "for the
residue Of the term" to bo represented by the
letters patents as reissued. II this view be
correct the assignment by tho present applicant
to Whiteley, Fesslor, aud Kelly, made Il impos.
the law emitting him to reissue. This transfer,
as appears by the very terms Of the assignment,
divested him Of all interest or control over tho
titlo to the invention and the effect Of rcssuing
letters patent "for tho residue Of the termn
would be to force title In defiance Of the act
of the party and in fraud of his assignee. In
word, II would be creating title where II docs
not belong without authority Of law. For these
reasons the motion is sustained, and the appeal
dismissed.
William Gage and Andrew Whiteley, assignecs
Of William Gago. On appeal to d. X. Cartier
Chief Justice, August 7, 1867. In the matter
Of the application Of Gage and Whiteley, as.
signees Of William Gage, for the reissue Of q
patent granted to Gage September 10, 1866
division "E " and "F'-for Improvements In
harvesters.
This case comes on for hearing upon motion
by Mr.. J. ]. Combs, on behalf Of the Commis.
sioner of Patents, to dismiss the appeal, on the
ground that the Commissioner has never finally
considered or decided the case, as shown by the
petition. As Judge, can only entertain iuris.
diction Of the final action Of the Commissioner
Of Patents. The transpiring history of the labor
Of the Patent Office from the initiation of an ap-
plicatiOn for patent until the final adjudication
there Is very properly committed to the authority
of the office. The Jurisdiction here commences
where 1t ends there. In tho case before me, II
appears that the Commissioner of Patents has
refused to entertain m appeal himself from the
subordinate tribunals OF his Office, for reasons
which 1t Is uunt tcessary to consider. 1t Is suti.
cient for all the purposes Of this case to know
that he has not entertained the appeal and De.
termined the case; that therefore the appellant
hero has mistaken his remedy The case plainly
shows that whatever remedy may survive TO the
appellant would more properly be by mandamus,
or IN action upon the case. Whether this would
be an appropriate remedy or not is unimportnnt
to decide. 1t is sufficient In the consideration
Of the present motion to say that the case lacks
the maturity that entities the appellant 10 the
remedy Of an appeal. The motion is therefore
sustained, and the appeal dismissed.
Andrew Whiteley assignee Of John J. Weeks,
on an appeal to d. X. Cartier Chief Justice
August 7th, 1867. Iu the matter of the appli
cation Of Andrew Whitley for the reissue oil
division d, as part Of n reissue of patent
dated September Goth, 1864, for improvement In
"Harvesters." This case Is heard on the motion
OF Mr.. j. j. Combs, OF counsel for the Patent
Office, to dismiss the appeal for the reason tha
the original patent, upon the reissue Of whicl
this application for a reissue is based was sur
rendered and reissued in three divisions befor
the application for division I'D" was made
This motion raises the question simply as to th
effect Of the surrender of n patent Can sucl
patent after its surrender bo received and treat
ed by the office or the judge as having legal vi
tality in such wiso as to give authority for re
issue? II l comprehend the subject 1t cannot
The surrender Of patent, and letters paten
granted in reissue for the same subjec
upon such surrender is the death of the
first patont in the life of the second -
Whatever Of title to the subject of the patent
survives is to be found In the letters o
reissue, and not in the patent out Of which such
letters grew, and an application thereafter mad,
fer reissue should bo based upon the reissued let
ters patent. Inasmuch as this application il
made upon an expired title, there is no authori
ties In the office to comply with 1t. For thest
reasons the motion is sustained, and the appea
is dismissed.
The Court then adjourned until this morning
|K KISTERBOCK'S WROUGHT IRON
IN N II ITrU