Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Wood-Paper Company v. Heft
75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 333
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1869-11-18
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- plaintiff and defendant to patent infringement action having come under common control, the case is moot
- A “case should not be heard by this court” if “there would be the same interest [in damages] on both sides.”
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Wood-Paper Company v. Heft. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 53 opinions
Headnotes
- Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction — Collusive or Moot Litigation An appellate court will not hear and determine a case on the merits where the plaintiff and defendant no longer have adverse interests, as where the plaintiff has acquired the defendant's interest and both parties are aligned in interest adverse to third persons whose rights would be seriously affected by a decision desired by both parties; in such circumstances the litigation is no longer a real one and the case must be dismissed.
- Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction — Collusive or Moot Litigation On a motion to dismiss a bill that was dismissed below, the court must first determine the question on the merits — whether the defenses set up in the answer are sustained upon the proofs — before the question of damages can be reached; where the court determines the defenses are not sustained, the question of damages arises, and where the litigation is collusive it will not be heard.
delivered the opinion of the court.
The case, as it now stands, is this: The complainauts having purchased in the patents under which the suit was defended, own both sides of the subject-matter of this litigation ; and, further, the owuers of the Dixon patents having taken, in consideration for the sale, stock in the complainants’. company, their interest has been transferred .to the side of the complainants.
It is • said) notwithstanding all these negotiations, exchanges, and transfers, the damages for the alleged infringement in the bill have not been compromised. But,, before that question can be reached, as the bill was dismissed below, this court must hear and determine the question on the iher-its, whether or not the defences set up in the answer are sustained upon the proofs. If the court should determine they wore not, then the .question of damages would arise; if otherwise, not. Now, upon this question of merits, the complainants own both sides of the litigation, and control them ; and, in the language of the Chief Justice, in the case of Lord v. Veuzie, * “the plaintiff and defendant have the same interest, and that interest adverse, and in conflict with the interest of third persons, whose rights would be seriously affected, if the. question of law was decided in the manner that both parties to this suit desire it to be.” And, for this reason, the case should not be heard by this court.
If anything further was necessary to show that the litigation-is no longer a real one; even if the Suit should proceed, and the question of damages be reached, there would be the same interest on, both sides, Dixon, one of the defendants,-since the sale of his patents, having a large interest on the side of the cofnplainants, and, as defendant, would be *337 subject to bis payment of part, o» the whole amount, of the damages recovered. Indeed, the weight of the proofs is, that he has bound himself to keep his co-defendants harmless.
The motion to dismiss the case, for the reasons above given, must be Granted.
8 Howard, 255.