St. Paul daily globe., 1888-11-13

General VS.. Vernon Il Vernon's Ch. rep,
2T7) establishes the doctrine that in a
case of fraud in the obtaining of
patent, a court of chancery. by virtue
OF that fact, has Jurisdiction to repeal
or revoke it. But whatever may have
been the course of procedure usual in
English jurisprudence, the court holds
that il can Lave but little force here,
for
WE HAVE NO KING,
no prerogatiye right of the crown; and
patents issue not from the president,
but from the United States. The pro-
visions for an appeal from the patent
commissioner to the supreme court OF
the District of Columbia, while they do
not, in express terms, confer upon the
courts of equity of the United States
show very clearly the sense OF congress
that if such power is to be exercised
anywhere it should be in the equity
jurisdiction of the courts. The only
authority to set a patent aside, or to an
nul it, or to correct it for any reason
whatever, is vested in the judicial de-
partment of the government, and this
cali only I've effected by proper proceed
ings taken in the courts of the United
States. The opinion of Judge Grier III
the case of The United States VS.. Stone
e Wall, 5251 in the circuit courtfef the
district of Kansas, is quoted and
adopted by the supreme court as fol-
lows: "a patent is the highest evi
denee of title, and is conclusive as
against the government, and all claim
ing under junior patent titles until it
is set rSide or annulled by some judicial
tribunal. In England this was origi-
ginally done by Scire faciaS, but bill
III chancery is found more convenient
remedy. Nor is
FRAUD IN THE PATENTEE
the only ground upon which bill will
be sustained. Patents are sometimes
issued unadvisedly or by mistake.
Where the officer has no authority in
law to grant them, OF where another
party has q higher equity and should
have received the patent in such eases
courts of law will pronounce them void
The patent is but evidence of grant.
and the officer who issues il acts minis
terialiy and not iudicially. If he issues
patent for land reserved from sale by
law, such patent is void for want of
authority. But one officer of the land
Office is not competent 10 camel or
annui tue act of his predecessor. This
10 al JuuiCiuI ftCt tlii iCquliSS tue JUG
ment of a court. 1t is cOntended here
by the counsel of the United States that
the land for which a patent was
granted TO the appellant was re-
served from sale for the use
of the government and con
sequently the patent is void. And, al
though no fraud is charged in the bill,
we have no doubt that such proceed
ing in chancery is the proper remedy.
and that in the allegations of the bill
are supported, that the decree of the
court below. canceling the patent,
should be affirmed" The supreme
court, in its decision in the case Of
United States VS.. San JacintO Tin COM
pany Q25 q. S., 273), held that ''If it is
apparent that the suit is brought for the
benefit of some third party, and that
the United States has no pecuniary in
tereSt in the remedy sought, it can no
more sustain such an action than any
private person could under similar cir
cunstanceS." This language is con-
strued by counsel for defendants in
error in this cas=, to limit the relief
granted at the insta nee of the United
States. 10 cases i'll which it has
DIRECT PECUNIARY INTEREST,
but the court holds it is not susceptible
of such construction. The essence of
the right of the United States to inter
fere in this case, is its obligation to
protect the public from the monopoly
Of the patent which vas procured by
fraud. In the case Of Mowry VS..
Whitney "a Wall 434) the supreme
court held that no one but the govern
ment could bring suit to yacate a patent
except in certain cases. The court HOW
holds that the reason the private citizen
i -, Il t,,.,,,
was because the right lay with the gov
ernment. The government and its Of
fcerS, acting as the agents of the peo-
pie i'm this case have taken from the
people and vested in the patentee
privilege said to be worth more than
S25, 100000; acting under forms of law,
but deceived and misled by the pat
entee. That the government should
find it to be its duty to get a remedy
for this fraud is SO clear that it needs
no argument; "And we think we have
demonstrated" says the court. THAT
the proper remedy is the one adopted
by the government in this case. But
conceding the jurisdiction of courts
of equity in regard to land pat
ents, it is claimed that congress has
provided other remedies in patent cases.
Each individual affected, it is said, can,
when sued for infringement. set up GER
tain defenSeS provided by law. On this
point the court rules that a successful
defense of this character simply estab-
fishes the fact that between the indi-
vidual infringer and the patentee no
right of action rests. The patentee
may still sue hundreds of other in
fringers, putting each of them to an eX-
pensive defense; whereas the suit of
the government, if successful, sets
aside the patent and puts
AN END TO ALL SUITS
the patentee can bring against anybody.
1t is impossible to suppose that con-
gress in granting this right to the indi-
Vidual intended to take away OF super
sede the more enlarged remedy of the
government. In the case of the King
VS.. Butler q I.eving s22O the judges de-
cided that lit was not unusual for the
king to have his remedy as we'll as the
subject also, for barteries, trespasses,
information and indictment and
the party grieved by his action"
In conclusion the court says that there
is nothing in these provisions express
ing an intention of limiting the power
of the government of the United StateS
to get rid of patent obtained from it
by fraud md deceit. And, although
the legislature may have given to pri-
vate individuals more limited form of
relief by way of defense to an action by
the patentees, we think the argument
that this was intended TO supersede the
affirmative relief to which the United
States is entitled to obtain cancellation
or revocation of an instrument obtained
from it by fraud, an instrument which
affects the whole public, whose protec-
ton from such fraud is eminently the
duty of the United States. is not sound.
The decree of the circuit court dismiss
ing the bill of plaintiff is reversed and
the case remanded to that court, with
directions to overrule the demurrer,