Court Opinion

ID: 9417949
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 20:45:14.63658+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:53.284383
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Holmes,
after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.
This case is governed by Belknap v. Schild, 161 U. S. 10. There an injunction was sought against the Commandant of the United States Navy Yard at Mare Island, California, and some of his subordinates, to prevent the use of a caisson gate in the dry dock at that place, contrary to the rights of the plaintiff as patentee.' The case was-heard on pleas setting up that the caisson gate was made and used by the United States for public purposes, and, as they were construed, .that it was the property of the United States. The pleas were held bad as answers to the'whole bill, because the bill also sought damages and the defendants might be personally liable, but it was held that an injunction could not be granted, and the bill was dismissed without prejudice to an action at law. Vavasseur v. Krupp, 9 Ch. D. 351, was cited for the proposition which was made- the turning point of the case, that the court' could not interfere with an object of property unless it had before it the person entitled to the thing, and this proposition wrás held to extend to an injunction--against the use of the thing as well as to a destruction, of it or to a- removal of the part .which infringed. It was pointed out that the defendants had no personal interest in the . continuance of the" use, and that, so far as the injunction was .concerned, the suit really was against the. United States. Of course, if those defendants were enjoined other persons attempting to use the caisson gate would be,- and thus thé-injunction practically would work a .prohibition against its use by the United States.
Belknap v. Schild differed from United States v. Lee, 106 U. S. 196; and Tindal v. Wesley, 167 U. S. 204, and also from *606American School of Magnetic Healing v. McAnnulty, 187 U. S, 94, relied on by the appellant, in the fact, among others, that the title of the United States to the caisson gate, was admitted, and therefore the United States was a necessary party to a suit which was intended to deprive it of the' incident of title, the right to usé the gate. As the United States could not be made a party the suit failed. In the case at bar the United States is not the owner of the machines, it is true, but it is a lessee in possession, for a? term which has not expired. It has a property, a right in rem, in the machines, which, though less extensive than absolute ownership, has the same incident of a right to use them while it lasts. This right cannot be interfered with behind its back and, as it cannot be made a party, this suit, like that of Belknap v. Schild, must fail: The ánswér to the question certified must be no. Whether or not a renewal of the lease could be enjoined is not before us.

The question is answered in the negative, and it will be so certified.