The New York Times The New York Times Washington   

Powered by: FindLaw

Cases citing this case: Supreme Court
Cases citing this case: Circuit Courts

U.S. Supreme Court


253 U.S. 136

MECCANO, Limited,
No. 187.

Argued Jan. 26 and 27, 1920.
Decided May 17, 1920.

[253 U.S. 136, 137]   Messrs. Reeve Lewis and W. B. Kerkham, both of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

Mr. H. A. Toulmin, of Dayton, Ohio, for respondent.

Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Proceeding against Wagner and others in the United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Meccano, Limited, obtained a decree ( July 8, 1916) affirming the validity, and restraining infringement, of its patent for mechanical toys, also restraining unfair competition in making and selling such toys and the further infringement of its copyright upon trade catalogue and illustrated [253 U.S. 136, 138]   manual relating thereto. Meccano v. Wagner, 234 Fed. 912. An appeal was taken to the Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. The same corporation instituted the present suit in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York (December 9, 1916) seeking like relief against John Wanamaker, a customer of Wagner.

The trial court granted a preliminary injunction, asked upon the bill, supporting affidavits and exhibits-January 12, 1917, It expressed general agreement with the conclusions announced in the Ohio cause and said:

An appeal followed, pending which the Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (November, 1917), reversed the Ohio District Court's decree so far as it sustained the patent, approved it otherwise, and remanded the cause for further proceedings. Wagner v. Meccano, 246 Fed. 603, 158 C. C. A. 573.

January 25, 1918, after argument, but before determination of appeal from the preliminary order, petitioner moved for final decision on the merits, claiming that the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 'is final and conclusive as to the case at bar, under principles enunciated by the Supreme Court.' Being opposed, the motion was denied- March 24, 1918. The court said of it:

April 15, 1918, the court below reversed the challenged preliminary order. After stating that the trial court very naturally followed the Ohio District Court, it referred to the partial reversal of the decree there announced and expressed entire agreement with the Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, in holding the patent invalid. And, having considered the evidence relating to copyright and unfair competition, it found no adequate ground for an injunction. 250 Fed. 450, 162 C. C. A. 386. The cause comes here by certiorari. See Ex parte Wagner, 249 U.S. 465 , 39 Sup. Ct. 317.

Decrees by Circuit Courts of Appeals are declared final by section 128, Judicial Code (Comp. St. 1120), in cases like the present one. We therefore had authority to bring this cause up by certiorari and may treat it as if here on appeal. Section 240, Judicial Code (Comp. St. 1217) Harriman v. Northern Securities Co., 197 U.S. 244, 287 , 25 S. Sup. Ct. 493; Denver v. New York Trust Co., 229 U.S. 123, 136 , 33 S. Sup. Ct. 657. The power of Circuit Courts of Appeals to review preliminary orders granting injunctions arises from section 129, Judicial Code, which has been often considered. Smith v. Vulcan Iron Works, 165 U.S. 518 , 17 Sup. Ct. 407; [253 U.S. 136, 141]   Mast, Foos & Co. v. Stover Manufacturing Co., 177 U.S. 485, 494 , 20 S. Sup. Ct. 708; Harriman v. Northern Securities Co., supra; United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Bray, 225 U.S. 205, 214 , 32 S. Sup. Ct. 620; Denver v. New York Trust Co., supra. This power is not limited to mere consideration of, and action upon, the order appealed from; but, if insuperable objection to maintaining the bill clearly appears, it may be dismissed and the litigation terminated.

The correct general doctrine is that whether a preliminary injunction shall be awarded rests in sound discretion of the trial court. Upon appeal, an order granting or denying such an injunction will not be disturbed, unless contrary to some rule of equity, or the result of improvident exercise of judicial discretion. Rahley v. Columbia Phonograph Co., 122 Fed. 623, 58 C. C. A. 639; Tea Traction Co. v. Barron G. Collier, Inc., 195 Fed. 65, 66, 115 C. C. A. 82; Southern Express Co. v. Long et al., 202 Fed. 462, 120 C. C. A. 568; City of Amarillo et al. v. Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co., 253 Fed. 638, 165 C. C. A. 264. The informed judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals exercised upon a view of all relevant circumstances is entitled to great weight. And, except for strong reasons, this court will not interfere with its action. No such reasons are presented by the present record.

Pending the New York appeal the situation underwent a radical change- the Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, reversed the decree upholding petitioner's patent. Evidently the trial court had granted the preliminary injunction in entire reliance upon that decree, and after its reversal the court below properly took notice of and considered the changed circumstances. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Ry. v. Dennis, 224 U.S. 503, 505 , 506 S., 32 Sup. Ct. 542.

Petitioner maintains that its motion for final decree upon the merits should have been sustained. But the appeal was from an interlocutory order and the court could only exercise powers given by statute. On such an appeal a cause may be dismissed if it clearly appears that [253 U.S. 136, 142]   no ground exists for equitable relief; but finally to decide a defendant's rights upon the mere statement of his adversary, although apparently supported by ex parte affidavits and decrees of other courts, is not within the purview of the act. He is entitled to a day in court with opportunity to set up and establish his defenses. The motion for final judgment was properly overruled. Eagle Glass & Manufacturing Co. v. Rowe et al., 245 U.S. 275, 281 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 80.

Petitioner's motion to enter a disclaimer must be denied.

If the two Circuit Courts of Appeals have expressed conflicting views, we cannot now declare which is right or undertake finally to decide the several issues involved upon their merits. The matter for review here is the action of the courts below upon the preliminary order for injunction and we may go no further. Leeds & Catlin Co. v. Victor Talking Machine Co., 213 U.S. 301, 311 , 29 S. Sup. Ct. 495; Lutcher & Moore Lumber Co. v. Knight, 217 U.S. 257, 267 , 30 S. Sup. Ct. 505.

The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is affirmed. The cause will be remanded to the District Court for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.

Copyright © 2003 FindLaw