« PreviousContinue »
two conflicting claimants seeks to recover for the use of the same property one cannot resist by a plea to the jurisdiction that the title to land is involved. 11
$ 671b. Jurisdiction in patent cases. By the Act of June 25th, 1910, as amended, July 1, 1918. “Whenever an invention described in and covered by a patent of the United States shall hereafter be used or manufactured by or for the United States without license of the owner thereof or lawful right to use or manufacture the same, such owner's remedy shall be by suit against the United States in the Court of Claims for the recovery of his reasonable and entire compensation for such use and manufacture: Provided, however, That said Court of Claims shall not entertain a suit or award compensation under the provisions of this Act where the claim for compensation is based on the use or manufacture by or for the United States of any article heretofore owned, leased, used by, or in the possession of the United States: Provided further, That in any such suit the United States may avail itself of any and all defenses, general or special, that might be pleaded by a defendant in an action for infringement, as set forth in Title Sixty of the Revised Statutes, or otherwise: And provided, further, That the benefits of this Act shall not inure to any patentee who, when he makes such claim, is in the employment or service of the Government of the United States, or the assignee of any such patentee; nor shall this Act apply to any device discovered or invented by such employee during the time of his employment or service." 1
484, 485. Chapter xxxii of Foster's Fed. Pr. 4th ed. describes its practice and jurisdiction.
11 Bright v. U. S., 6 Ct. Cl. 118; S. C., 8 Ct. Cl. 326.
$ 671b. 1 36 St. at L. 851, as amended St. at L. Comp. St. & 9465. See supra, 100. The statute gave no right to an employee of the United States who has made an invention out of office hours during the time of his employment by the Government. Moore v. U. S., 249 U. S. 487, 39 Sup. Ct. 322, 63 L. ed. 721.
Before the amendment the statute did not authorize the recovery of royalties from the United States for the use of patents without any express or implied recognition of the rights of the patentee and against his protest. Schillinger v. U. S., 155 U. S. 163, 39 L. ed. 108; Harley's Case, 39 Ct. Cl. 105; E. W. Bliss Co. v. U. S., 253 U. S. 187. So as to the use of copyright. Lauman's Case, 27 Ct. Cl. 260. But see Hollister v. Benedict & B. Mfg. Co., 113 U. S. 59, 28 L. ed. 901; Farnham v.
Neither the Court of Claims nor any other court has jurisdiction of an action against the United States, or against any officer, thereof, to enjoin the infringement of a patent, or to recover profits or damages from such an officer on account of the use of the article by him in his official character where he derived no personal benefit from such use.4 Nor for an injunction to restrain a contractor from furnishing to the Government articles, not in themselves infringements, which are intended for use in an infringement. This statute does not prevent a suit against a Government contractor to recover profits or damages because of an infringement by him.6 $ 672. Statute of limitations in Court of Claims.
"Every claim against the United States, cognizable by the Court of Claims, shall be forever barred unless the petition setting forth a statement thereof is filed in the court, or transmitted to it by the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House of Representatives, as provided by law, within six years after the claim first accrues:1 Provided, That the claims of married
U. S., 240 U. S. 537; U. S. v. Basic Products Co., 260 Fed. 472, 477. But where the United States had adopted an improvement covered by a patent at the request of the patentee, with notice that he claimed a patent right thereto, and with no assertion of a right to use this, the patentee might recover a reasonable royalty in a suit in the Court of Claims founded upon a contract implied from the transaction. U. S. v. Palmer, 128 U. S. 262, 32 L. ed. 442; Brook's Case, 39 Ct. Cl. 494. But see Russel v. U. S., 182 U. S. 516, 45 L. ed. 1210; Hartman's Case, 35 Ct. Cl. 106; Russel & Livermore's Case, 35 Ct. Cl. 154; Eager's Case, 3.5 Ct. Cl. 556; Coston's Case, 33 Ct. CI. 438.
2 U. S. v. Palmer, 128 U, S. 262, 269, 32 L. ed. 442, 444,
3 Belknap v. Schild, 161 U. S. 10, 40 L. ed. 599; Dashiell v. Grosvenor, C. C. A., 66 Fed. 334. Cf. James v. Campbell, 104 U. S. 356, 26 L. ed.
786; supra, $ 100. But sce Head v. Porter, 48 Fed. 481.
4 Belknap v. Schild, 161 U. S. 10, 40 L. ed. 599; International Postal Supply Co. v. Bruce, 194 U. S. 601, 48 L. ed. 1134.
5 Crozier v. Krupp, 224 U. S. 290; Marconi Wireless Tel. Co. v. Simon, 246 U. S. 46. As to the right to an injunction against a Government contractor to restrain an infringement, see case last cited.
6 William Cramp & Sons Ship & Engine Building Co. v. International Curtis Marine Turbine Co., 246 U. S. 28. $ 672,
1 The statute does not begin to run until the passage of an act authorizing the suit although the facts which create the claim previously occurred. Sage v. U. S., 250 U. S. 33, 39 Sup. Ct. 415, 63 L. ed. 828; Wray v. U. S., 19 Ct. Cl. 154. A State cannot sue to recover the proceeds of swamp lands which have
women first accrued during the marriage, of persons under the age of twenty-one years, first accrued during minority, and of idiots, lunatics, insane persons, and persons beyond the seas at the time the claim accrued, entitled to the claim, shall not be barred if the petition be filed in the court or transmitted as aforesaid, within three years after the disability has ceased; but no other disability than those enumerated shall prevent any claim from being barred,? nor shall any of the said disabilities operate cumulatively." An action for money received by the United States must be brought within six years after its reception. Where money is not payable until demand, the statute does not begin to run until the demand is made.5 No officer can waive the statute, and the court must take notice that the claim is barred, if that appears. When the United States submit to be sued in a State court, it seems that they may take advantage of the State statute limitations.
8 ܕ ܕ
been credited to the State on the Treasury books more than six years before the suit was brought. U. S. v. Louisiana, 127 U. S. 182, 32 L. ed. 66. The statute does not begin to run on a claim for extra work under a building contract contemplating the same, until the whole contract is performed. U. S. v. Gibbons, 109 U. S. 200, 27 L. ed. 906.
2 The plaintiff's ignorance of his ability to establish his claim does not prevent the statute from running. Green v. U. S., 17 Ct. Cl. 174. When the statute once begins to run, no subsequently occurring disability, such as insanity, suspends it. Whitney v. U. S., 18 Ct. Cl. 19; Leonard v. U. S., 18 Ct. Cl. 382. See McDonald v. Hovey, 110 U. S. 619, 28 L. ed. 269. The claimant's death does not interrupt the statute if the claim accrued during his life.
Sierra v. U. S., 9 Ct. Cl. 224. If the claimant dies before the claim accrues, the statute does not begin to run until the appointment of an administrator. Fulenweider v. U. S., 9 Ct. Cl. 403. Inability to sue by reason of aid given to the Confederacy by the claimant does not prevent the run
ning of the statute. Kendall v. U. S., 107 U. S. 123, 27 L. ed. 437.
3 Jud. Code, $ 156, 36 St. at L. 1087, re-enacting U. S. R. S., $ 1069, The Tucker Act of March 3, 1887, provides that the Statute of Limitations shall not apply to claims referred to the Court of Claims by the head of a Department under section 1063 of the Revised Statutes, provided such claims were presented for settlement at the proper Department within six years after they accrued. U. S. v. Lippitt, 100 U. S. 663, 25 L. ed. 747; Winnisimmet Co. v. U. S., 12 Ct. Cl. 319. The Statute of Limitations did not apply to suits to establish a defense under Sections 1059-1062 of the Revised Statutes. U. S. v. Clark, 96 U. S. 37, 24 L. ed. 696. Nor to claims under the Abandoned Property act, Jud. Code, g 162 quoted supra, $ 671.
4 Clark v. U. S., 99 U. S. 493, 25 L. ed. 481.
5 Harrison v. U. S., 20 Ct. Cl. 175; U. S. v. Cooper, 120 U. S. 124, 30 L. ed. 606. See U. S. v. Lawton, 110 U. S. 146, 28 L. ed. 100. It has been held that the statute begins to
on a claim for services, when
§ 673. Parties plaintiff. A married woman, who by the law of her domicile may hold property in equity, with or without a trustee, may sue in her own name, even though her husband refuses to be a party, provided the laws of her domicile permit such a suit. Minors should sue through a guardian appointed in the State of their domicile instead of through the guardian appointed in the State where their property is situated. A corporation organized under the laws of a State in the Confederacy, for purposes not hostile to the government, may sue under the Captured and Abandoned Property Act. A principal may sue in his own name, although the contract was made in the name of an agent. “After the filing of a case transmitted the court, by the head of an Executive Department or by Congress or either House, thereof, any person directly interested in the case may appear as a party therein, by filing his petition, under oath, in accordance with Rules 15 and 16.” 6 “Any person claiming to be indirectly interested in any question involved in such case may appear and be heard on the
presented. U. S. v. Wilder, 13 Wall. 254, 20 L. ed. 681; Titus v. U. S., 16 Ct. 01. 276. An item in the account of a court commissioner for fees was held barred when the services for which he charged were rendered more than six years before proceedings. Patterson v. U. S., 21 Ct. Cl. 322. A claim for the price of property sold is barred within six years after the delivery of the property, not from the time when the Department refused to allow the payment, unless payment by the terms of the contract was postponed. Battelle v. U. S., 7 Ct. CI. 297. An officer whose accounts are settled annually is entitled to the balance due at the end of each fiscal year. Ellsworth v. U. 8., 14 Ct. Cl. 382; U. S.
v. Ellsworth, 101 U. S. 170, 25 L. ed. 862.
6 Finn v. U. S., 123 U. S. 227, 31 L. ed. 128. Acknowledgments and promises by executive officers without legislative authority do not prevent the running of the statute. Leonard v. U. 8., 18 Ct. C), 382.
7 Stanley v. Schwalby, 147 U. S. 508, 37 L. ed. 259, supra, S8 95, 96, 183.
$ 673. 1 Meriwether v. U. S., 13 Ct. Cl. 259.
2 Stanton v. U. S., 4 Ct. Cl. 456. 3 Ibid.
4 U. S. v. Insurance Cos., 22 Wall. 99, 22 L. ed. 816; Home Ins. Co. v. U. S., 8 Ct. Cl. 449.
5 Ramsdell v. U. S., 2 Ct. Cl. 508. 6 Ct. Cl. Rule 21.
one side or the other, as his interest may require, upon filing a petition, under oath, setting forth specifically and concisely how he claims to be interested, and submitting the questions raised to the decision of the court."7 “If no claimant directly or indirectly interested, appears and files his petition within six months, the Attorney-General upon thirty days' notice to the parties who appear by the papers transmitted to be interested therein, may set the case down for trial upon such evidence as he may submit. Where such case was transmitted by the head of an Executive Department the court will proceed to try the case upon the statement made by the head of such department.
8 “No person shall file or prosecute in the Court of Claims, or in the Supreme Court on appeal therefrom, any claim for or in respect to which he or any assignee of his has pending in any other court any suit or process against any person who, at the time when the cause of action alleged in such suit or process arose, was, in respect thereto, acting or professing to act, mediately or immediately, under the authority of the United States.” 10 “Aliens who are citizens or subjects of any Government which accords to citizens of the United States the right to prosecute claims against such government in its courts, shall have the privilege of prosecuting claims against the United States in the Court of Claims, whereof such court by reason of their subject matter and character, might take jurisdiction.” 11 The subjects of Great Britain 12 of Belgium, 18 of France, 14 of Italy, 16 of Prussia, 16 of Spain, 17 of Switzerland,18 and corporations created by any of these governments,19 may sue in the Court of Claims,20 So may a corporation chartered by Spain in the Philippine Islands, prior to their annexation to the
7 Ct. C1. Rule 22.
11 Jud. Code, 155, 36 St. at L. 1087, re-enacting U. S. R. S., § 1068. See 38 Stat. L. 791.
12 U. S. v. O'Keefe, 11 Wall. 178, 20 L. ed. 131; Carlisle v. U. S., 16 Wall, 147, 6 Ct. Cl. 398.
18 De Give v. U. S., 7 Ct. Cl. 517.
14 Rothschild v. U. S., 6 Ct. Ci. 204; Dauphin v. U. S., 6 Ct. Cl. 221.
15 Fichera v. U, S., 9 Ct. Cl. 254.
19 Philippine Sugar Estates Development Co. v. U. S., 39 Ct. CI. 225; s. C., 40 Ct. C1. 33.
20 U. S. R. S., § 1068.