Dean v. Mason
61 U.S. 198 (1857)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Dean v. Mason, 61 U.S. 20 How. 198 198 (1857)

Dean v. Mason

61 U.S. (20 How.) 198

Syllabus

In suits for the infringement of a patent right, the rule of damages is the amount which the infringer actually realized in profits, not what he might have made by reasonable diligence.

After a bill is taken pro confesso in the circuit court, a motion to allow an answer to be filed is addressed to the discretion of the court, and from a refusal so to do an appeal does not lie to this Court.

A motion to dismiss the complainant's bill upon the ground that he had parted with his interest was properly overruled, because such assignment was not made until after the time when the computation of profits ended.

Page 61 U. S. 199

The bill was filed by Nathan Mason of the City of Providence, in the District of Rhode Island, planer of boards; Charles D. Gould, of Albany, in the State of New York; William W. Woodworth, of Hyde Park, in the Northern District of New York, as he is administrator of William Woodworth, late of the City of New York, gentleman, deceased, and as he is grantee of certain exclusive privileges under and pursuant to an act of Congress, as is hereinafter fully set forth; James G. Wilson, formerly of the City of Philadelphia, and now of Hastings, in the State of New York, gentleman; and Richard Borden, and Jefferson Borden, both of the Town of Fall River and District of Massachusetts, against Dean, of the City of Providence.

The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

Page 61 U. S. 202

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.