Wood-Paper Company v. Heft
Cases that cite this one
42 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Cover v. Schwartz (2d Cir. 1942)
- Gordon Gould, Refac International, Limited, Patlex Corporation, and Creative Patents, Inc. v. Control Laser Corporation and Holobeam Laser Corporation (Fed. Cir. 1989)
- Poe v. Ullman (Supreme Court of the United States 1961)
- Estado Libre Asociado v. Aguayo (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1958)
- Vincit, LLC v. Brown (District Court, E.D. Texas 2024)
- Commonwealth v. Aguayo (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1958)
- Robinson v. Wayne (D.C. Cir. 1943)
- Fortson v. Toombs (Supreme Court of the United States 1965)
- Cahill v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad (Supreme Court of the United States 1956)
- United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission (District Court, District of Columbia 1948)
- United States v. the San Leonardo (District Court, E.D. New York 1942)
- The Pietro Campanella (District Court, D. Maryland 1942)
- Newman v. Stocker (Md. 1932)
- Mercantile Trading Co. v. Rosenbaum Grain Corp. (Court of Chancery of Delaware 1931)
- Earl v. Morrison (Nev. 1915)
- Irving-Pitt Mfg. Co. v. Twinlock Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1914)
- Schmertz Wire Glass Co. v. Western Glass Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois 1910)
- Keely v. Ophir Hill Consol. Mining Co. (8th Cir. 1909)
- Schmertz Wire Glass Co. v. Western Glass Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois 1909)
- Ridge v. Manker (8th Cir. 1904)
- Reid v. Chao (District Court, District of Columbia 2023)
- Parker v. County of Los Angeles (Supreme Court of the United States 1949)
- O'Donnell v. United States (9th Cir. 1936)
- Eddingston v. Acom (Tex. App. 1924)
- Princeton Coal & Mining Co. v. Gilmore (Ind. 1908)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.