Case Name: MAITLAND et al. v. CENTRAL GAS & ELECTRIC FIXTURE CO.
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1894-02-08
Citations: 27 N.Y.S. 421
Docket Number: 
Parties: MAITLAND et al. v. CENTRAL GAS & ELECTRIC FIXTURE CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 27
Pages: 421–422

Head Matter:
(7 Misc. Rep. 245.)
MAITLAND et al. v. CENTRAL GAS & ELECTRIC FIXTURE CO.
(City Court of New York, General Term.
February 8, 1894.)
Courts—Jurisdiction—Patents for Invention.
A state court has no jurisdiction to determine the validity of patents for inventions.
Appeal from special term.
Action by George Maitland , and the General Fixture Company against the Central Gas & Electric Fixture Company. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the fifth paragraph of the amended answer, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before EHRLICH, C. J., and YAH WYCK and FITZSI-MOHS, JJ.
Birdseye, Cloyd & Bayliss, for appellant.
A. Walker Otis, for respondents.
Affirmed. See 27 N. Y. Supp. 965.

Opinion:
EHRLICH, C. J.
The appeal seems to present the single question whether the defendant can question in this court the legality of the patent under which the plaintiff claims. The court below properly held that this court could not determine the validity or invalidity of the patent, as that question must be determined in the federal court. The demurrer as to this point was therefore properly sustained. As to the counterclaim, • the court overruled the demurrer, because the defendant had set up in its answer a counterclaim for moneys paid by mistake and without any consideration, and which were, in the nature of things, recoverable back. As the plaintiff does not appeal, this part of the judgment need not be considered. The defendant appeals from that portion of the order which sustained the demurrer to the fifth paragraph of the amended' answer, and, as the order in respect thereto was properly made, it must be affirmed, with costs. All concur.