Court Opinion

ID: 95516
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-28 16:38:15+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:39:09.714423
License: Public Domain

182 U.S. 516 (1901)
RUSSELL
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 242.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued April 16, 1901.
Decided May 27, 1901.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS.
*530 Mr. James H. Hayden for appellants. Mr. Joseph K. McCammon was on his brief.
Mr. Charles C. Binney for appellee. Mr. Assistant Attorney General Pradt was on his brief.
MR. JUSTICE McKENNA, after making the above statement of the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
It is conceded that a contract must be established to entitle appellants to recover, and, it is contended, that one is established by the correspondence between the Ordnance Department and Russell in regard to the use of the "Army rifle," which, it is claimed, contained features of Russell's invention. That is, not an express contract is claimed, but an implied contract is claimed. This court has held that under the act of March 3, 1887, 24 Stat. 505, c. 359, defining claims of which the Court of Claims had jurisdiction, the court had no jurisdiction of demands against the United States founded on torts. Schillinger v. United States, 155 U.S. 163; United States v. Berdan Fire-Arms Co., 156 U.S. 552. In other words, to give the Court of Claims jurisdiction the demand sued on must be founded on a convention between the parties  "a coming together of minds." That there was such "coming together of minds" is asserted in the case at bar, and United States v. Palmer, 128 U.S. 262, is cited to sustain the assertion. That case was considered and *531 commented on in Schillinger v. United States, supra, and it was said to be "an action to recover for the authorized use of a patent by the government, and these observations in the opinion are pertinent: `This is not a claim for an infringement, but a claim of compensation for an authorized use  two things totally distinct in the law, as distinct as trespass on lands is from use and occupation under a lease. The first sentence in the original opinion of the court below strikes the keynote of the argument on this point. It is as follows: "The claimant in this case invited the government to adopt his patented infantry equipments, and the government did so. It is conceded on both sides that there was no infringement of the claimant's patent, and that whatever the government did was done with the consent of the patentee and under his implied license." We think that an implied contract for compensation fairly arose under the license to use, and the actual use, little or much, that ensued thereon.'"
The facts of the case fully supported the remarks of the court. The petitioner Palmer was the inventor, patentee and owner of improvement of infantry equipments. They were submitted to a board of officers appointed to consider and report upon the subject of proper equipment for infantry soldiers. The board recommended Palmer's invention. The recommendation was approved by the General of the Army and the Secretary of War, and the invention was manufactured by the government and used.
McKeever v. United States, 14 C. Cl. 396, affirmed on appeal by this court, rested on the same facts as the Palmer case, the only difference being that McKeever's invention was a cartridge box. There was a recommendation by the board, and the manufacture and use of the cartridge box by the government.
But there is a wide difference between the facts in those cases and the facts in the case at bar. The rifle of the petitioners was not adopted by the board; the Krag-Jorgensen rifle was. The contention is, however, that the latter rifle contained some of the features of petitioners' invention, and that by adopting it the Ordnance Department conceded that fact and the rights of petitioners to compensation. We are unable to draw *532 that conclusion from the correspondence, conceding the power of the Ordnance Department to make the concessions.
The first letter of Captain Russell "invites attention to claims 22, 28 and 29" of his patent, and expresses a belief that "the Krag-Jorgensen magazine gun lately adopted by the War Department" infringed them "in the connection between the magazine and the receiver." The letter concluded as follows: "In considering the allowance for inventions we would request that our claims for these vital points of construction be regarded." A somewhat vague request. However, the letter was replied to (November 18), and he was told that "the business arrangements with the Krag-Jorgensen Company for the manufacture of this arm have not yet been completed," and it is represented to him that the company may agree to indemnify the United States, in which case his "recourse would be to communicate directly with the company." Or if the government should proceed to manufacture the arms without such arrangement, his course would be "to bring suit against the government in the Court of Claims after manufacture has progressed." Of what and on account of what was he to communicate to the Krag-Jorgensen Company, and on account of what was he to bring suit against the government? On account of an implied contract which had arisen or would arise between him and the United States? Certainly not but on account of an infringement of his invention which might arise. And this was his interpretation, for he writes on the 9th of December that he "could practically have no remedy for infringement of any patent against the Krag-Jorgensen Company, as they have not, that I am aware of, any property in the United States." He requested a hearing before "any business arrangement with the Krag-Jorgensen Company" should be closed.
In reply to that letter he was told by the Ordnance Department that his letters had been referred to the Commissioner of Patents, and that the Commissioner "states that the invention of H.I. Krag and Erik Jorgensen for improvement in magazine firearms has been examined, and the invention has been found patentable." He is then requested, in "further presentation" of his patent, to "communicate direct with the Commissioner *533 of Patents." He did so, and was informed that it was not seen how the Patent Office had any jurisdiction in the matter. "Questions of infringement," he was told, "can be determined only by the courts." Letter February 14, 1893. Waiting until June 30, he informs the Ordnance Department of the reply of the Commissioner of Patents, claimed again the Krag-Jorgensen to be an infringement of his patent and repeated the request of December 9, 1892, that the Ordnance Office allow him "a hearing before any business arrangement with the Krag-Jorgensen Company" be closed. On July 7 that letter was returned to Captain Russell with the endorsement, "that a statement of the case be made in writing for file at this office, and for future reference, as the case stated cannot be determined by the Ordnance Office. The agreement with the Krag-Jorgensen people is such that they are required to guarantee the United States against all damages for infringement."
In answer to this letter Captain Russell's letter of November 22, 1893, (Ex. I,) was written. It need not be reproduced at length. It described his invention and wherein the Krag-Jorgensen rifle infringed that invention, and stated that he based his claim "for compensation on the infringement" of his claims 22 and 28 "and the probable infringement of claim 29" of his patent No. 230,823, of August 3, 1800, "by the Krag-Jorgensen construction." The letter concluded as follows:
"I am not fully informed as to the terms of the contract between the United States and the owners of the Krag-Jorgensen patent. Assuming that the owners of said patent are in ignorance of my rights in the premises, I respectfully request that a copy of this communication may be sent to said parties, and a duplicate of this paper is forwarded for that purpose, with an extra copy of my patent to go with the duplicate. I further request that I may be furnished with the name and address of the responsible parties representing the Krag-Jorgensen interest.
"I am aware that in the event of a suit in equity the alleged infringing parties have a statutory right to challenge the validity of my patent, and, to avoid litigation, I am willing to go further than to make a mere statement of the prima facie case as above, and show to the infringing parties or their experts that *534 my claims are well within my rights, provided I am met by these parties in a fair spirit and with a desire to make just compensation when my title to the property is shown.
"My first official notice to the Ordnance Department of this infringement is dated November 16, 1892, (Ordnance Office file 5839 of 1892,) but a gun presenting the special features here mentioned was submitted by me to the board on magazine guns, convened by General Orders 31, H.Q.A., March 21, 1881, and it is described in the report of that board. It is now in my possession subject to examination."
He received the following reply, which seems decisive against the contention of petitioners that there was a concession of their patented rights and implied contract to compensate petitioners:
"I am instructed by the Chief of Ordnance to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 22d instant, and to inform you that the terms of the contract between the United States and the Krag-Jorgensen Company contain a clause to the following effect:
"`The said party of the first part shall indemnify the United States and all persons acting under them for all liability on account of any patent rights granted by the United States which may affect the right to manufacture herein contracted for.
"`You have requested that a copy of your communication and a copy of your patent should be forwarded by this office to the company, and for that purpose you have forwarded duplicates of your letter and of the patent specifications. It is considered best that you should forward these communications direct; they are, therefore, returned to you for the purpose.'
"The address of the contracting party is `The Krag-Jorgensen Geivehr-Kompagnie, Christiania, Norway.' The other papers, enclosures to Ordnance Office file 3515, containing letter and copies of patent specifications, are filed in this office for future reference.
"Your attention is again invited to the statement of the first endorsement on that file, which states that the case `cannot be determined by the Ordnance Department.'"
Not only is the foregoing letter closing the correspondence decisive against petitioners, but we can discern nothing which *535 tends to support their contention and claim. It was not deemed necessary even to grant his request for a hearing. His rifle was not adopted; another was. There was no concession of his rights. He was told twice that his case could not be determined by the Ordnance Department. There was probably, however, no thought of an arbitrary invasion of his rights. The Ordnance Office sought the opinion of the Commissioner of Patents, and was informed that the Krag-Jorgensen improvement in machine firearms had been examined, and the invention had been found patentable in view of the state of the art. The patent of petitioners was part of the state of the art. The opinion of the Commissioner, of course, was not necessarily conclusive. As he himself said, "Questions of infringement belong to the courts." And because such questions are for the courts the Ordnance Office, no doubt, took indemnity from the Krag-Jorgensen Company, not in concession of petitioners' claim, but for protection against it, if protection should be necessary, and whether it would be or not the Ordnance Office very naturally resolved not to determine. The prudence which takes a bond against a claim cannot be said to constitute or raise a contract in favor of the claim  cannot be said to have intended to create the liability which was meant to be forestalled. Indeed, the Ordnance Office twice wrote Captain Russell that his case could not be determined by it. No contract therefore based on the action of that office can be claimed. If petitioners have suffered injury it has been through the infringement of their patent, not by a breach of contract, and for the redress of an infringement the Court of Claims has no jurisdiction. This doctrine may be technical. If the United States was a person, on the facts of this record (assuming, of course, the petition to be true) it could be sued as upon an implied contract, but it is the prerogative of a sovereign not to be sued at all without its consent or upon such causes of action as it chooses. It has not chosen to be sued in an action sounding in tort this court has declared, as we have seen.
Judgment affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN did not participate in this case.
*536 MR. JUSTICE SHIRAS, MR. JUSTICE WHITE and MR. JUSTICE PECKHAM dissented.