The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-01-06
NEW PATENT LAW POINT
JUDGE BAKER RULES ON QUESTION
OF COURTS JURISDICTION.
Decision by Court of Appeals of Dis.
trict of Columbia Does Not Bar
a Future Trial.

-" - 1890 "a -
mour. commissioner of patents, is made a
defendant, Judge Baker yesterday overruled
a demurrer TO the complaint and made an
important ruling covering a point never be
fore decided. Bernard.n brought suit in
chancery TO recover his property rights in
an invention known as the beaded sealing
cap He sets forth in the complaint that
he was the first inventor of the device; that
Northall was in his employ when he Was
preparing his models and making arrange
ments to apply for a patent; that while
still in the compliments employ Northall
entered into secret correspondence with the
Crown Lick Seal Company, of Baltimore.
which resulted in Northall applying for a
patent for the invention as his own. This
set up an interference which delayed the
granting of the patent to Bernardin, but
the latter was finally awarded the patent.
From the decision of the commissioners of
patents Northall took an appeal TO the
Circuit Court of Appeals of the District of
Columbia, by which court the decision of
the COMMISSIONS OF patents was reversed
and a mandate sent down ordering the is
suance of the patent to Northall. Ber-
hardin then brought this suit in the Circuit
Court in equity.
One objection raised by Northalls de-
murrer TO the complaint is as follows:
IUtTS has DteH an duJuOlCdtlOl oI mt
matter here in controversy between the
parties in the Circuit Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia. and this contro-
verSy having been adjudicated. il cannot
again be litigated in this court
The question raised is the right of a Circuit
Court to entertain de novo a bill of equity.
Prior to the creation of the Circuit Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia
the Supreme Court of the District of Column
bia, sitting in banc, had power to review
patent cases. except interference cases,
where no appeal from the commissioner of
patents was allowed. Where a patent i'm
an interference case was refused by the
preme Court of the District of Columbia
sitting in banc the remedy was by . bill of
equity In the Circuit Court of the United
States. By the act creating the Circuit
Court of Appeals for the District of Column
bia, appeals from the commissioners of pat
ents may be taken in interference cases and
II is contended by the defendant in this
case that the remedy by a bill of equity in
the Circuit Court is repealed by implication;
that the decision of the Court of Appeals is
final and conclusive and that the dignity of
the Court of Appeals is such that it would
be unfit and indecorous for a Circuit Court
to re-examine the appellants right 10 q
patent.
Judge Baker settles the question of the
consideration of the relative dignity of the
two courts by the inference that matters of
law cannot be determined by sentiment. He
showed plainly that the law allowing the
adjudication of such a case by a bill of
repealed by Implication. The purpose of an
appeal TO the Supreme Court of Appeals is
to have a review of the decision of the COM
missioner of patents on the identical record
before the latter Office, but il is no substi-
tute for the trial of property rights pro-
vided for by a bill of equity in the Circuit
Court. The court then shows that i'm con-
sidering the case it is not reviewing a de-
cision made by the Supreme Court of APP
peals for the District of Columbia. for no
matter what the decision of that court, the
only result is a mandate to an inferior ofi-
Ger.
The Appellate Court" says Judge Baker,
hears and decides an executive or adj
ministrative question in aid of the Patent
Office on record made up in that office.
while the Circuit Court hears the case upon
a bill of equity in due course of judicial
procedure. not only on the evidence heard
by the commissioner of patents and Court
dence as either party to the suit may
choose to present. The trial before the
Court of Appeals is restricted and is in the
aid of an executive duty rather than d
judicial hearing. = : : The s%aIutary prin-
ciple that an inventor shall have his day i'm
court and a right to a judicial hearing be-
fore being finally barred of his right to a
patent. secured by Section 1915 of the Re
vised Statutes. in my opinion. remains un-
affected by the act to establish the Court
of Appeals of the District of Columbia
Probate Affairs.
Rev. Denis O'Donaghue. of st. Patriok's
Church. was yesterday appointed admins
traitor of the estates OF Kate and Mary
Corbet, the mother and laughter who re-
Gently died from gas suffocation. They
lived on Shelby street. A neighbor broke
into the house and found the mother dead
and the daughter in a dying condition. 1t
is not known whether they nave any near
relatives. Their estate is worth several
thousand dollars. Father O'Donaghue gave
two bonds of $500 each. with John r.
WEIGH. John Carbon and p. H.. McNelis as
sureties.
Edward l.. Mckee was appointed admin.
istrator of the estate of Emma Coughlin
Mckee. The Union Trust Company became
surety on his bond of SIC, 0GO.
Albert Gall was appointed administrato
of Louise Gall.
The will of Lucy j. Herndon was adj
mitted TO probate. 1t provides that all heI
property shall be converted into money
After the yme of her debts she gives
so TO Coral Il. Collier and directs that the
balance shall be equally divided between
Mrs. Matte NJ. Connelley and j. j.. Hern-
don. Mary J.. Fletcher. a daughter of the
! testatrix. valves her right TO participant,
in the estate in favor of the other bene-
fciaries. Mrs. Connelley was appointed
administratrix giving a bond of 5000. witt
DR.. w. r. Jeffries as surety.
Responsibility of Hats Death.