From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

George v. Victor Co.

U.S.
Dec 17, 1934
293 U.S. 377 (1934)

Summary

In George v. Victor Talking Machine Co., 293 U.S. 377, 55 S. Ct. 229, 79 L. Ed. ___, the Supreme Court held that this court was without jurisdiction to entertain an appeal which was not taken within the time prescribed by law.

Summary of this case from Walters v. Baltimore O.R. Co.

Opinion

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT.

No. 128.

Argued December 5, 1934. Decided December 17, 1934.

1. A decree of the District Court finding infringement of the common law right of property in a song, granting an injunction, and appointing a master to take and state an account of profits and report to the court, with the usual provisions for exceptions to such report, is interlocutory. P. 378. 2. An appeal from such a decree, taken after the time limited by Jud. Code § 129, 28 U.S.C. § 227, has expired, is beyond the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of Appeals. P. 379. 69 F.2d 871, reversed.

CERTIORARI to review a decree reversing, on the merits, a decree of injunction and for an accounting of profits, in a suit based on an infringement of the plaintiff's common law right of property in the words of a song.

Mr. Minitree Jones Fulton, with whom Messrs. Robert L. Nase and Q.C. Davis, Jr., were on the brief, for petitioner.

Mr. Louis Levinson, with whom Messrs. Robert P. Myers, Lawrence B. Morris, I.E. Lambert, and Isaac D. Levy were on the brief, for respondent.


Review was limited to the question of the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of Appeals. The suit was brought for the infringement of the common law right of property in a song, and the bill sought an accounting of profits made by the defendant. The District Court sustained the plaintiff's right as author and found infringement. Decree was entered granting an injunction and appointing a special master to take and state an account of profits and to report to the court, with the usual provisions for exceptions to the report. The decree was interlocutory. The Palmyra, 10 Wheat. 502; Perkins v. Fourniquet, 6 How. 206, 208, 209; Craighead v. Wilson, 18 How. 199, 202 (explaining Forgay v. Conrad, 6 How. 201); Beebe v. Russell, 19 How. 283, 287; Humiston v. Stainthorp, 2 Wall. 106; Keystone Manganese Co. v. Martin, 132 U.S. 91, 93, 97; McGourkey v. Toledo Ohio Central Ry. Co., 146 U.S. 536, 547; Guarantee Co. v. Mechanics' Savings Bank Trust Co., 173 U.S. 582, 586; Simmons Co. v. Grier Brothers Co., 258 U.S. 82, 89. The decree was entered on March 31, 1933, and the appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals was not taken until May 18, 1933. The Circuit Court of Appeals entertained the appeal and reversed the decree of the District Court. As the appeal was not taken within the time prescribed by law, the Circuit Court of Appeals was without jurisdiction. Jud. Code, § 129, 28 U.S.C. § 227. The decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to that court with directions to dismiss the appeal.

Reversed.


Summaries of

George v. Victor Co.

U.S.
Dec 17, 1934
293 U.S. 377 (1934)

In George v. Victor Talking Machine Co., 293 U.S. 377, 55 S. Ct. 229, 79 L. Ed. ___, the Supreme Court held that this court was without jurisdiction to entertain an appeal which was not taken within the time prescribed by law.

Summary of this case from Walters v. Baltimore O.R. Co.
Case details for

George v. Victor Co.

Case Details

Full title:GEORGE v . VICTOR TALKING MACHINE CO

Court:U.S.

Date published: Dec 17, 1934

Citations

293 U.S. 377 (1934)

Citing Cases

Wolfinger v. Mueller

The Supreme Court has held that an appeal from an interlocutory decree, taken after the expiration of the…

Zwack v. Kraus Bros. Co.

We may also review the denial of the motion to dismiss for failure to join indispensable parties since if…