Humiston v. Stainthorp
69 U.S. 106 (1864)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Humiston v. Stainthorp, 69 U.S. 2 Wall. 106 106 (1864)

Humiston v. Stainthorp

69 U.S. (2 Wall.) 106

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Syllabus

A decree in chancery, awarding to a patentee a permanent injunction, and for an account of gains and profits, and that the cause be referred to a master to take and state the amount, and to report to the court, is not a final decree within the meaning of the act of Congress allowing an appeal on a final decree to this Court.

Stainthorp and Seguine had filed a bill in the Circuit Court for the Northern District of New York against Humiston for infringing a patent for molding candles, and had obtained a decree against him.

The decree was that the complainants were entitled to a permanent injunction, and for an account of gains and profits, and that the cause be referred to a master to take and state the amount and report to the court.

A motion was now made to dismiss the cause for want of jurisdiction.

Page 69 U. S. 110

MR. JUSTICE NELSON delivered the opinion of the Court, and after stating the case, said:

The decree is not final within the act of Congress providing for appeals to this Court according to a long and well settled class of cases, some of which we only need refer to in disposing of the case. *

Motion granted.

* The Palmyra, 10 Wheat. 502; Barnard v. Gibson, 7 How. 650; Crawford v. Points, 13 How. 11; Craighead v. Wilson, 18 How. 199; Beebe v. Russell, 19 How. 283.

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.