American Bell Tel. Co. v. Kitsell
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
In Equity. On motion for additional relief. It is familiar that a court of equity, besides declaring a deed void, may (and usually does) order the physical thing to be delivered up and physically canceled, as a more sure and certain way of making sure that its decree'is obeyed, although in a sense this deprives the defendant of his property in the paper. But de minimis non curat lex.
Read the full summary
In Equity. On motion for additional relief. It is familiar that a court of equity, besides declaring a deed void, may (and usually does) order the physical thing to be delivered up and physically canceled, as a more sure and certain way of making sure that its decree'is obeyed, although in a sense this deprives the defendant of his property in the paper. But de minimis non curat lex. In this case it appears from the confessed allegations, and is indeed obvious from the character of the instruments— (1) That if they exist, there is great danger that they may go into other hands, where they…
1Opinion of the Court
Walt,ace, J.
In refusing to insert a provision in the decree that the defendant deliver over the infringing instruments to the complainant to be destroyed, notwithstanding the bill, which has been taken as confessed, contains a prayer, among others, for such relief, the refusal is placed not oil the want of power of the court to make such a decree, but upon the want of any apparent necessity for making one differing from those ordinarily granted by the courts of this country in suits for the infringement of patent rights. Where tho court has power to decree, necessarily it has power to carry…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Birdsell v. ShaliolSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
3Cited by2 opinions
- Lion Mfg. Corporation v. Chicago Flexible Shaft Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1939
- American Caramel Co. v. MillsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1907