Case Name: GOLD v. GOLD et al.
Court: United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1910-05-25
Citations: 181 F. 544
Docket Number: 
Parties: GOLD v. GOLD et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 181
Pages: 544–544

Head Matter:
GOLD v. GOLD et al.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
May 25, 1910.)
Patents (§ 114 )—Suit to Obtain Patent—Pleading—Multifaeiousness.
A bill filed against an adverse party to obtain the issuance of a patent, under Rev. St. § 4915 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3392), and which also joins the Commissioner of Patents as a defendant to compel the granting of a reissue, which is an ex parte matter, is multifarious.
[Ed. Note.—Por other cases, see Patents, Dec. Dig. § 114.*]
In Equity. Suit by Egbert H. Gold against Edward E. Gold and another. On demurrer to bill.
Demurrer sustained.
Otto Raymond Barnett and Samuel E. Darby, for complainant.
William A. Redding and Arthur C. Fraser, for defendants.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
WARD, Circuit Judge.
The prayer for relief seems to me to be so worded as to call for a decree on the interference only. But the structure of the bill and the including of the Commissioner of Patents as a party defendant show that the complainant's intention is to ask for a decree upon the question of reissue, as well as upon that of interference. If the Commissioner of Patents were to appear, as he might, relief on two independent causes of action, each not affecting all parties, would be demanded.
I think the bill is multifarious, and therefore the demurrer is sustained, with leave to the complainant to amend, if so advised, within 20 days; otherwise, the bill to be dismissed.