Van Meter v. United States

denly Saybrook. there was when appeal admitted in its that near The accident brief on any navigation, mistake or either due which in of to an error “evidence the record appellant navigation inter management error in unforeseeable or to disclaims, freshets, tide, spring sea- action of wind, that vessel.” would seem to show “danger sea,” to each in “due dili- was a worthiness fact existed so * * * * * * gence exemption make to vessel of which afforded the Harter Act seaworthy” liability. peculiar The Indrani immaterial. We hold (C. A.)C. 177 F. 914. action of the elements which occasioned damage “peril ease was sea” this a regarded But, if even the flotilla could within deci the rules laid down numerous unseaworthy to neglect because of observe (C. A.) sions. The 74 F. Warren Adams C. Depártment regulations the War Frey 413; (C. A.) page The C. 106 F. at respect towing barges to more than four page 324; (C. A.) at Giulia C. through Gate, failure Hell because-of page 746; at F. Duche v. Brocklebank Spartan carry precise crew called to (C. A.) single C. 419. Hot inspection, these her certificate any Say- witness testified that conditions at way faults in no contributed the accident to anticipated brook have been Saybrook disregard at the A Breakwater. helper necessitated the Hartford tug, regulation statute or not does make Company constantly single tug had had a deprive vessel an outlaw her ben perform impunity. the service with neglect efits of the Harter Act when her do with action which to the cause of properly disposed The trial court is asserted her. issues before it, the decrees in the libel and are cross-libel affirmed. While that the Harter contended 190-195) requires Act §§ own provide ship respects er to is in all sea worthy before he can take advantage requirement exemptions under that only damages affects causes of action for VAN METER v. UNITED STATES. resulting from unseaworthiness. Nos. enough displace affreight the contract deprive exemp ment and the vessel Appeals, Circuit Second Circuit. tions Harter-Act she unsea Jan. worthy, damage caused Jr., unseaworthiness. Baxter, The Malcolm 901; 72 L. (C. Turret Crown A.)C. 284 F. (D. C.) Turret Crown 282 F. (C. view, A.) Thessaloniki C. In F. 67. foregoing, language Judge Mor ris in (C. Willdomino A.) F. page at effect that a carrier is lia “wholly regard ble whether any not there was causal connection between diligence the lack due ship to make the seaworthy respects in all and the loss caused negligence navigation or in the management of the vessel” regard cannot be ed in accord with the authorities. Spartan contention that the seaworthy her tow were not helper because a tug kept was not Saybrook at attendance testimony is untenable. The tugs showed that constantly and tows journey up Sound and into the river, Connecticut both during spring times, freshets and other at without assistance and with entire success.

There was no reason for anticipating danger

on this The wind occasion. came sud- HAND, Judge, dissenting Circuit

part. Powers, (Mel- John S. Buffalo, N. Y. ville Church, Jardins, B. Des and C. C. Calhoun, Washington, all of C.,D. of coun- appellant. sel), Rugg, Atty. B. (Jon., Charles Asst. Templeton, Richard H. Atty., Har- Ehrlich, B. Atty., old Asst. S.U. both of Buffalo, N. (J. Frank Y. Mothershead and Stoutcnburgh, Washington, Paul P. both of C., counsel), D. United States. MANTON, Before HAND, CHASE, Judges. Circuit MANTON, Judge. Circuit tried, without the inter- jury, vention before the court. Title (28 773). USCA § Special findings were judgment entered for $46,137.50. below for granted Plaintiff 1,192,- No. 479, on 25, 1916, an application filed parachute March 1911, for a apparatus. July 25, .1916, plaintiff After became an Army officer of the United States and con- such, tinued attached to the air service, at trial of the action. As officer in the Army, United States he could not sue the United States Claims under the statute. Title Code, § 68). require To do so would signing leaving his commission and the serv- though ice, even employment by government. him Congress passed special act, upon jurisdiction based, permits prosecute his suit. provides “jurisdiction hereby conferred Claims District Courts States, notwithstanding of the United lapse of time the statute of limitations Meter, that Solomon Van the fact employee of or in the Air junior, is Serv- examine, hear, ice of apparatus back, chute with him on his on the claim adjudicate, and render parachute having use release the at will junior, for the Meter, of Solomon L. Van jumped. The court found this combination by or for the United States and manufacture by prior of elements and not lawful novel disclosed thereof or owner without license of the evidence; patents publications or offered in same, of the or manufacture to use that there was no device junior, use of the Meter, Van invention of Solomon embodying invention; that combina- patent num- this the letters in or covered described tion of claimed limited 2, elements in claim as 1192479, the Patent Office bered issued disclaimer, the involved invention over July, day 25th the the on United States Met-, prior art; the there- patent and that the L. Van 1916, prior to the time Solomon infringed. fore valid and junior, service of the United er, entered the 1, 2, p. 1601, pt. § c. 587, States.” Stat. accounting, that, On the the court found 271, Congress, Tr. Acts, 68th Private No. suit, plaintiff the on the date of the owned plain. 408, purpose this patent rights entire and all for action jurisdiction on Court It conferred the past infringement en- thereof; that he was District Court of the Claims or the compensation titled to recover non- for the for judgment on render the claim States to use and licensed maufacture the defendant plaintiff by compensation infringing apparatus reason of the of the for a from period infringement complained January August 1925, the 1919', 15, and found in to and 1, during period, 3,691 below. that of in- court units fringing parachute apparatus, for which was findings special The court made and found paid $1,292,740.46, used, had that been and validity patent facts the as the the and complete para- $12.50 for each unit of the infringement 2, of claim as modified apparatus royalty. chute was a reasonable disclaimer the Patent Office. filed in The findings support These the plaintiff court declined to en- award the the has been entered. against profits gov- tire as the appeals ernment. the The defendant from The court found as a the existence fact findings-of infringement, plaintiff and the statutory prerequisites of the dis a valid to from the amount of the award. argued claimer. But is that there it finding evidence support or. the special The act authorized a review court below should not have found the ex appellate (Colgate court v. United inadvertanee, accident, istence of or mistake. Ct. S. L. Ed. accident, The existence of or inadvertanee, but, jury, since the ease was tried without a mistake is a fact. Since it inquiry to an the limited review against been found defendant, the one of support judg found the facts the whether ment. special findings the that, without fraudulent Jackson, 9 v. Wall. Norris deceptive or intention, plaintiff the claimed Prather, Preston original than that which he was the 11 S. title S. U. inventor, and, compliance first the with (28 875). No '§ USCA bill S. U. Rev. Stat. §§ USCA exceptions filed or has been ordered the 65, 71), §§ parts he disclaimed such expired. do so has court. The time to things patented as did he not choose to claim findings disclose for a com- by patent, virtue of is .valid parachute suspensory and bination with truly for that which is his. is the in body user, cords connected with the vention set forth in claim 2 as thus limited body of means attached to the the user by the disclaimer. In view of this finding, confining parachute cords, for and the disclaimer cannot successfully attacked together releasing with‘means para- here. did or said in chute from confinement means quick- dicating an pub intention to dedicate to the expansion ening insuring para- patented by lic the him invention as described when all released, being chute elements em- validity infringement in claim 2. Both upon body in an worn apparatus bodied having found, plaintiff’s right of the user and unconnected with the aero- recovery is ‘established. plane, so does limit his movement argues The defendant parachute latter. Tucker with Act, pull Code, 41(20) title cord, is released release ir- recovery respective position 41(20), under $10,- of the user limits it to with spect jurisdiction Tucker Act plane. may With confers aviator jump carrying upon the District in certain plane, free of the classes of para- against United United arising States District Court recover cases, claims any contract, $10,000 upon suit, but, off with was cut expressed implied, amendment unliquidated. liquidated damages, such suit the contractor jurisdiction left in a limiting general to a suit This is juris confers of reason Claims Courts, District hut But the unli of cases. able and entire for the diction in these classes con plaintiffs benefit special censed use and manufacture of his invention. authority to special the District Court inapplicable ferred to this judg render adjudicate, and hear, examine, against suit. this restriction un plaintiff for the of ment on the claim re compensation and entire to be reasonable by the or for manufacture licensed use or against covered suit the United States patented invention. It States of his United must include the contractor’s which disability under which to sue removed the previously could have been recovered a jurisdiction on the suffered, and conferred he against the contractor. found The court Court, judgment on his to render District profits existed, that such amount that the reading for reason There is no sound claim. $139,758.74. special refers, was we the amount of limitation as to into the act a think, general providing to the statute for bearing no Act has recovery. The Tucker compensation reasonable and entire which could not sue claim. He plaintiff’s the plaintiff’s is the standard which claim for juris special act. conferred It for this hut use for the and manufacture in respect to the amount diction patented States his invention will be Pfitsch, 256 U. S. S. v. volved. U. measured. It is “his reasonable and entire Ed. U. S. v. Mc 569, 65 L. 41 S. Ct. compensation” the statute intended he should (C. A.) 270 F. Grane Underpinning have. Foundation Co. v. & 611, 7 122 U. S. States, (D. C.) Rice v. United Foundation Co. 256 Luel F. wheth- 1377, 30 L. Ed. considered (D. C.) S. len v. Baldwin Ct. Locomotive Works general limitations, statute er or not 11 390. In Richmond v.Co. United the. Claims, applicable States, 194, 197, suits in the Court 72 S. S. U. court, the apply to a suit the should the considered the effect of jurisdiction by given July had been 1, 1918, of Claims to the Act of amendment of apply, and special assignee act. It was held to the. June was an The suit af- judgment brought of the Court Claims was patent of the under the 1918 act. bearing upon assignee case has question firmed. But that was can whether the under consideration. infringement prior here as the sue for the to the assignee may signment. sue. It was held the seeking appeals recovery for The contractor was held liable all con profits rather manufacturer’s than tributory infringement the 1918 until royalty pur allowed below. One of the as. amendment, providing for amendment. The special act, which conferred poses of this away right compensation the entire takes the jurisdiction upon Court, the District was against the contractor. The of s.uit claim compen on the for render against government given the instead the did not have sation, which be against contractor, and should be (title.35, Code, cause of Act of U. S. equivalent compensatory. to bo It was 68]). provides:' “The It § USCA [35 assignability that, said since a feature provisions section shall benefits pur of the claim the contractor, the any who, when he inure to- port assignee act is to allow the employment is in claim, such makes patent of a compensation to sue for past for of the United Government service years. The eourt said: any assignee patentee.” States, or purpose “The right of an inventor to hold the was to United amendment entirely recovery liability relieve the contractor from exclusively for liable of rea every infringement kind for the pat- and entire un sonable manufacturing anything patent by gov- ents in of his manufacture use licensed ernment, and to was conferred the Act limit the owner assigns claiming 25, 1910, through and his and all of June amended the Act of (title 35, him suit under [35 the in 68]). inventor sue the Court Claims for the contractor, manufactured and who has used his reasonable and entire for the United use and manufacture. The word invention, the such ‘entire’ to the amendment , ' ¡ j ' . " n , ;ing ' .USCA the manufacturer matter mel Co. v. Thomas products ment Northwestern Glass damages. Rev. and no tus. sustained inventor who for their 49); American Caramel Co. v. ing profits from case of tended date of such munity calculation patent. alty duly owner of the away Such notice 8); could have recovered as tractor for give certainty. There is a definite able equity against what States sume of 1918 intended to to the emphasizes character of the Solicitor General (C. ^[7] directed pay modified, is Bro., supra; Flat amended the Government. important C. A. profits, notice of By taking certainty, Son is warned except it his to be taken into profits realized damages contractor of damages and affects judgment will be modified took permissible and resorted to just equivalent.” manufactured 70), evidence 3). September 18,1920, assignable claims Congress to enter it is hnd determination the exclusive away profits made in by Pressed away notice. assignability infringement. American patent the exact element infringing apparatus. but amendments to seeure does not manufacture affirmed.. proof S. Revised exact Act latter’s are recoverable Stat. more than notice prerequisite remedy says in September 18, 1920, and, and the may September from him. here there Mills & judgment accordingly. Co., contractor. Feb. securg to Steel Car Co. * * * A that the defendant was assumption of by this sum equivalent in their value Slab not recover of a reasonable account in him. patentee infringement of 281 F. 51 the contractor infringing appara his The District provided. 18, 1922, § passage of the use in the United not Statutes, § sold Bro., against the such claims Patents Co. brief is no such 1918, plaintiff waiver of comprehensive We susceptible infringement. Thomas equivalent It with manufacture finding in a suit It must of what 162 F. 147 took undertook is providing must patented, (C. owner infringe damages the first liability (D. reason As in the taking allow- Cara Prior mark A.C. away Mills must stat- eon- roy pre- un L. im- C.) (35 290, in- v. presupposes like one who treated him whole for his loss. The v. International Curtis Marine Turbine nent profits, or the than wrong, for “his reasonable and entire harmless situation; article valid as a ed States its. the United States must itself manufacture 1222, 41 R. as to but made lawful all remedy; it have done this tractor’s Nobody disputes and, 1918 has royalty obviously all entitled but for the statute? equity able at bar are “entire ing should be of 1910 did part). Bldg. except Turbine only covery should be (Cramp did found patented When I concur in the only ground him full 32 from damages, royalty? domain. Crozier these, than not HAND, Circuit was “used “reasonable Co. like. as a constructive trustee of his since there is otherwise no basis States to S. Ct. act of. valid, compensation.” Co., profits to which he would have L. A. & Sons those who it has necessary protect is it 618-622, (Cramp so partial v. not indeed “entirely” patentee left .the States,” apparatus, or undertake to save has procured provided not Westinghouse treating September 18, only cut from under the think International damages, Or does constitutionally lawful the or manufactured Ship at all as the result was, contractors with exploit any patent the defendant’s (N. S.) compensation.” 56 seiztire limited & but from suits for disposition contracted patentee with no recovers this was to L. Ed. 771. acts Sons give covered that when a him. But the remedy. Judge (dissenting passed Does that which in the case patentee’s Krupp, property by Engine Bldg. 653. a “license” include the con- “compensation”; to a reasonable v. do Ship is what is compensation.” Curtis public S. Ct. right of emi- plaintiff’s Wagner, with of this to meet this with infringer officers, be his either that infringer’s of Claims & 224 U. However, the Unit- could property This was patented making remedy remedy reason- include Marine Engine it, service gains, fraud prof- case, is a only giv- Co., not not Co. his is TENO et THE al. because, by now done, seized, but that “entire,” pat- making the TAMARACK. THE from the States United entee can recover THE KNICKERBOCKER. own user only loss caused for his not CO. NEW YORK & HASTINGS STEAMBOAT man- the contractor’s hut for that caused v. COMPANIA SUD AMERICANA pat- adequate, ufacture. As VAPORES. DE seiz- complaint entee had cause no WESSEL, Krupp. ure. Crozier v. CHILE EXPLORATION CO. v. CO. DUVAL & et al. granted 1918, I can patents As to imposing upon No. 109. no basis for see conceivable liability; any further States Appeals, Second Circuit. Circuit Court of anomaly effect establish do so would in Jan. The United domain. law of eminent certainly whole might seize any rate, and, hero at terms, on such granted greater the less. Patents includes in- and their different, before 1918 are upon constitu- throws no doubt clusion tionality dealing act. We are with a of suit which arose before the cause may arguendo agree passed; “property,” which could this was patents earlier taken. But entirety, well as those seize in their terms; later, the same exploit might part, too these in whole. seize them in Finally, we cannot construe statute patents granted one sense as before another later, those by hypothesis every got case to its work done pay the United States must still merely patentee’s damages, but the profits. was in Yet that sub- exactly position stance its between get nothing 1918. It could done its con- tractors unless it indemnified them profits, expressly, suits for either or because they price loaded contract possibilities. statute, construed, so change procedure, effected but hardly purpose. which can have plaintiff’s only support is certain lan- guage used the Chief Justice Rich- mond Screw Anchor S., Co. v. U. 275 U. S. wholly L. Ed. in a connection, different deciding and in quite question. another We have often been ad- we monished that should wreneh language opinion setting, out of its apply it in pre- vacuo. This seems me eminently an occasion to remember the cau- tion; see the reason cannot least to as- sume tile court in that case meant to provide present, like situations necessary

it does not seem therefore to make language nice in the used. For distinctions Burlingham, Veeder, these Judge Fearey, reasons I believe Hazel Clark City Hupper, York (Chauneey of New confining I. to reasonable Eugene royalty. Underwood, Clark both New

Case Details

Case Name: Van Meter v. United States

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Date Published: Jan 5, 1931

Citation: 47 F.2d 192

Docket Number: 110, 164

Court Abbreviation: 2d Cir.