BRIGGS V. UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CO., 239 U. S. 48 (1915)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 239 U. S. 48
Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/239/48/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/239/48/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Briggs v. United Shoe Machinery Co., 239 U.S. 48 (1915)
Briggs v. United Shoe Machinery Company
No. 638
Submitted October 12, 1915
Decided November 1, 1915
239 U.S. 48
Syllabus
A suit for royalties reserved upon the sale of a patent right is not a suit arising under the patent laws, and the district court does not have jurisdiction on that ground.
The bill in this case does not present a case in equity within §§ 4915 or 4918, Rev.Stat.
The general powers of the federal courts when sitting as courts of equity can only be exerted in cases otherwise within the jurisdiction of those courts as defined by Congress.
Only the United States can maintain a bill for the annulment of a patent on the ground of its procurement by fraud.
The facts, which involve the jurisdiction of the district court of the United States in cases arising under the patent laws, are stated in the opinion.