| Cir. Ct. Del. | Sep 15, 1856
The proposition contended for may be considered as a correct statement of the general rule as settled in England. Baily v. Taylor, 1 Russ. & M. 73. This doctrine had its origin in the case of Jesus College v. Bloom, 3 Atk. 264, Amb. 54, as applied to bills to restrain waste; but, since that time, the exceptions to the rule have become so numerous, that the rule can hardly be recognized as existing. The bill needs only to pray a discovery for the purpose of account, and it will be sustained for the account only.
The proposition, it is said in the books, cannot be maintained, that a court of equity will not interfere to direct an account when indebitatus assumpsit will lie at law. Nor
As it appears in this, case that, in order to ascertain the extent of the plaintiffs’ damages, it might become necessary to have a discovery and account of profits, I see no good reason why the court might not retain jurisdiction of the case for that purpose, ■even on the principle of the English cases. The jurisdiction of the court ought not to depend on the accident of the date of its decree. If, in this case, the decree were dated on the 19th of May, 1856, the jurisdiction of the court could not be doubted, while it is challenged as impotent to give any decree on the 21st of the same month. If the complainants are able to sustain their ■case on the other points, and it was absolutely necessary, to sustain our decree, that an injunction form a part of it, I would order the decree to be entered nunc pro tunc as of the date of the 19th of May last. The delays of a court of chancery should not be suffered to operate as a bar to the complainants’ suit.
But the courts of the United States have their jurisdiction over controversies of this nature by statute, and do not exercise it merely as ancillary to a court of law. The 17th section of the patent law of 1836 [5 Stat. 124] ordains that “all actions, suits, controversies and cases arising under any law of the United States granting or confirming to inventors the exclusive right to their inventions or discoveries shall be originally cognizable, as well in equity as at law, by the circuit courts of the United States.”
Besides this general and original cognizance or jurisdiction over the whole subject matter, a special power is conferred on the circuit courts to grant injunctions. Having such original cognizance of these controversies, the courts of the United States do not, in all cases, require a verdict at law on the title, before granting a final injunction, or concede a right to either party to have every issue as to originality or infringement tried by a jury.
Exercising our jurisdiction in these controversies not by assumption for a special purpose only, or as ancillary to other tribunals, but under plenary authority conferred by statute, the technical reasons which compelled the English chancellor to refuse a decree for an account where he could not decree an injunction, can have no application.
Point overruled.