Rock Island daily Argus., 1888-11-13
AGAINST nIELEPHoNEn BELL.
The United States supreme Court Decides
Against His Demurrer.


WASHINGTON CRY, Nov lS-Justice Mil
ler. of the United States supreme court, yes-
terday rendered decision in the suit of the
United States against the Bell Telephone
company, brought here on appeal from the
decision Of the circuit courtof Massachusetts
sustaining the demurrer entered by the Bell
company to the government suit. Justice
Miller decided that the Bell company's con-
tention that the United States has no right
to bring a suit to set aside patent is not
good. Justice Miller overruled the decision
of the circuit court of Massachusetts,, and
the court remands the case with instructions
to entertain the governments bill.
The two principle grounds Of the demurrer
were in brief:
First That the complainant in. and by its said
bill does not show any power or authority, and no
power or authority in law exists in any person or
party, any court to bring said suit, nor to en-
tertain the same, nor to give the relief therein
prayed for, nor any relief hereunder, or touch
ing the subject matter thereof.
Second-That the bill does not set forth any
fraud in the procuring Of said patents; nor what
acts if any the complainant relies on as consti-
tuting fraud in procuring said patents and for
that it does not show when, how, or from whom,
or by what means the complainant first had
knowledge or notice of each alleged fact, nor
why with due diligence it would not have learned
them earlier; and also ''bscauss if the allegations
contained in said bill true they would not enttla
the complainant to the relief prayed for nor to
any relief in any court of equity
The decision holds that the first of the
above is perhaps the most important, as it
| sets forth in broad assertion that party
may practice an intentional fraud upon the
patent officers and perpetuate grievous
wrong upon the public 1t assumes that the
government, which has thus been imposed
upon and deceived, is utterly helpless, and
that it can take no steps to correct the evil.
| The opinion goes on to show the anomaly of
this statement. aud on that and the point
made by tne Bell counsel that the remedy, if
any exist, is in q common law court and not
court OF equity, adopts the opinion of Judge
Grier in the case of United States vs. Stone
e Wall 500 in the circuit for the district of
Kansas, as follows:
A patent is the highest evidence of title and is
conclusive against the government, and all
claiming under Junior patents titles until it is
set aside or annulIed by some judicial tribunal
In England this was originally done by scirt
facias, but bill in chancery is found more con
yenient remedy. Nor is fraud in the patentee the
only ground upon which Dill will be sustained
Patents are sometimes issued unadvisedly or BY
mistake-where the officer has au
thority in law togrant them wher
another party has higher equity ant
should have received the patent. Ii
such cases courts of law will pronounce then
void. The patent is but evidence of a grant, ant
the officer who issues it acts mini i-teriay and no
judically. If he issues patent for land reserved
from sale by law. such patent is void for want o
authority. But one officer of the land Office i
not competent to cancel or annul the act of hi
predecessor. That is Judicial act and require
the Judgment of court. 1t is coDtended her
by the counsel of the United States that the Ian
for which patent was granted to the appeIlau
was reserved from sale for the use of the govern
ment, and consequently that the patent is void
And, although no fraud is charged in the bill, W
/, have no doubt that's uch proceeding in CHANGER
is the proper remedy, and that if the allegati n
of the bill are supported, that the decree of tn
court below, csncelng the patent should be a
firmed.
As to the second proposition the decisio
. SAYS:
The bill alleges that Bell knew at the time
filing his application for the patent of March
1876 that he was not the original and first invei
tor as the law requires he should be. The bi
r then charges that the untrue statements made
5 Bell in connection with the application eonst
+. tuted deception aud fraud upon the governinen
/. and that but for said fraudulent statements II
patents woad not have been issued. The b
also alleges that Bell Intentionally refraned froI
any expression which would lead to the idea thl
his invention WAS to be used as telephone, as
. his statement he said that his invention was fl
''an improvement in telegraphy."
: The fraud alleged is precisely the fraud whit
would be committed in a case of this kind. 1t
!. the fra:d of obtaining patent for an inyentio
o of which the party knew he was not the origin
J. | inventor