Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/88995/holt-vs-indiana-mfg-co
Timestamp: 2017-12-13 22:52:52
Document Index: 727803783

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 629', '§ 563', '§ 1979', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 709']

Holt Vs Indiana Mfg Co - Citation 88995 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
Holt Vs. Indiana Mfg. Co. - Court Judgment
LegalCrystal Citation legalcrystal.com/88995
Decided On Jan-15-1900
Case Number 176 U.S. 68
Respondent Indiana Mfg. Co.
.....or the validity, or the infringement of the patents referred to, or any other question under the patent laws, and was not therefore a suit arising under the patent laws, and the circuit court had no jurisdiction of it on that ground. the provisions in rev.stat. § 629, clauses 9 and 16, § 563, and § 1979, brought forward from the act of april 20, 1871, c. 22, refer to civil rights only, and are inapplicable here. following united states v. sayward, 160 u. s. 493 , and fishback v. western union tel. co., 161 u. s. 96 , the court holds that the sum of $2,000 named in § 1 of the act of march 3, 1887, c. 373, as corrected by the act of august 13, 1888, c. 866, was jurisdictional, and following the paquete habana, 175 u. s. 677 , it holds that.....
Holt v. Indiana Mfg. Co. - 176 U.S. 68 (1900)
U.S. Supreme Court Holt v. Indiana Mfg. Co., 176 U.S. 68 (1900)
The reasons for refusing at October Term 1898, to dismiss this case on the ground that the appeal to this Court was not taken in time are the same as those set forth in Allen v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 173 U. S. 479 .
Following United States v. Sayward, 160 U. S. 493 , and Fishback v. Western Union Tel. Co., 161 U. S. 96 , the Court holds that the sum of $2,000 named in § 1 of the Act of March 3, 1887, c. 373, as corrected by the Act of August 13, 1888, c. 866, was jurisdictional, and following The Paquete Habana, 175 U. S. 677 , it holds that this is not affected by the fact that the operation of the Act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, was to do away with any pecuniary limitation on appeals directly from the circuit court to this Court.
The decree of the circuit court was entered in March, 1896, and the appeal to this Court was not taken until somewhat over one year and six months, though within two years, thereafter. In January, 1898, a motion to dismiss was made on the ground that section 1008 of the Revised Statutes, giving two years for the bringing of a writ of error or the taking of an appeal to review the judgments or decrees of the circuit or district courts, was repealed by the Judiciary Act of March 3, 1891. We did not concur in that view, and the motion was denied, though without an opinion. But in Allen v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 443 U. S. 479 , the
The complaint that the assessment of these taxes was illegal because in effect levied on patents or patent rights did not involve the construction, or the validity, or the infringement of the patents referred to, or any other question under the patent laws. This was not, therefore, a suit "arising under the patent laws," and the circuit court had no jurisdiction on that ground. Dale Tile Manufacturing Company v. Hyatt, 125 U. S. 46 ; Wood Mowing Machine Company v. Skinner, 139 U. S. 293 ; Wade v.Lawder, 165 U. S. 624 .
If state legislation impairs the obligations of a contract, or deprives of property without due process of law, or denies the equal protection of the laws, as asserted by counsel in respect of the statutes of Indiana, remedies are found in the first section of the Act of August 13, 1888, 25 Stat. 433, c. 866, giving to the circuit courts jurisdiction of all cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and in § 709 of the Revised Statutes, which gives a review on writ of error to the judgments of the state courts whenever they sustain the validity of a state statute or of an authority exercised under a state, alleged to be repugnant to the Constitution or laws of the United States. Carter v. Greenhow, 114 U. S. 317 ; Pleasants v. Greenhow, 114 U. S. 323 .
(3) Treating this bill as setting up a case arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States on the ground that the laws of Indiana authorized the taxation in question, and were therefore void because patent rights granted by the United States could not be subjected to state taxation, or because the obligation of the contract existing between the inventor and the general public would be thereby impaired, or for any other reason, the difficulty is that the pecuniary limitation of over two thousand dollars applied, and the taxes in question did not reach that amount. And the effect on future taxation of a decision that the particular taxation is invalid cannot be availed of to add to the sum or value of the matter in dispute. New England Mortgage Company v. Gay, 145 U. S. 123 ; Clay Center v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 145 U. S. 224 ; Citizens' Bank v. Cannon, 164 U. S. 319 .
25 Stat. 433, 434, c. 866. This was carefully considered in United States v. Sayward, 160 U. S. 493 , and it was held that the sum or value named was jurisdictional, and that the circuit court could not, under the statute, take original cognizance of a case arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States unless the sum or value of the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs and interest, exceeded two thousand dollars. That decision was reaffirmed in Fishback v. Western Union Telegraph Company, 161 U. S. 96 , 161 U. S. 99 . And the conclusion reached is not affected by the fact that the operation of the Act of March 3, 1891, was to do away with any pecuniary limitation on appeals directly from the circuit courts to this Court. The Paquete Habana, 175 U. S. 677 .