Bacon v Jones
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 July 1839 |
| Date | 26 July 1839 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 41 E.R. 167
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 1 Beav. 382; 3 Jur. (O. S.), 994. See Ridgway v. Roberts, 1844, 4 Hare, 116; Rodgers v. Nowill, 1846, 6 Hare, 331; Mounsey v. Earl of Lonsdale, 1870, L. R. 10 Eq. 559.
bacon v. jones. July 13, 24, 26, 1839. [S. C. 1 Beav. 382 ; 3 Jur. (O. S.), 994. See Riilyway v. Roberts, 1844, 4 Hare, 116 ; Badgers v. Nmvill, 1846, 6 Hare, 331; Mounsey v. Earl of Lonsdale, 1870, L. R. 10 Eq. 559.] In August 1835 a patentee filed a bill to restrain an alleged infringement of his patent, and the Defendant having by his answer denied the validity of the patent, and also 168 BACON V. JONES 4 MY. * OR. 4M. the fact of the alleged infringement, the Plaintiff made no interlocutory application for an injunction, but went into evidence in support of his case, and in May 1839 brought the cause to a hearing. The Master of the Rolls, being of opinion that the Plaintiff, upon the evidence, had not made out a case which would have supported an injunction if applied for in the interlocutory stage, refused to give him an opportunity of establishing his title at law by retaining the hill, with liberty to bring an action; and dismissed the bill, with costs ; and the Lord Chancellor, on appeal, affirmed this decision. Consideration of the principles and practice of the Court in granting injunctions in patent cases, upon interlocutory motions and at the hearing. This suit was instituted in the month of August 1835, for the purpose of establishing the Plaintiffs' exclusive right to a patent for the manufacture of a gas-[434]-lamp burner of an improved construction, called "The Patent Double Cone Gas-burner." The bill alleged that from the time of the granting of the letters patent, which were dated the 3d of July 1829, until the acts of infringement complained of, the Plaintiffs, or those under whom they claimed, had been in the sole and undisturbed enjoyment of the patent right; but that the Defendants had recently infringed the patent by manufacturing and selling gas-burners constructed on the same principle, and which were counterfeits or imitations of the gas-burners of the Plaintiffs; and it prayed that the Defendants might account for the profits which they had made by the sale of burners so piratically manufactured, and might be perpetually restrained by injunction from infringing the patent in future. After the bill was on the file, the Plaintiffs did not apply for any interlocutory injunction; but upon the answers coming in, denying the validity of the patent and the fact of the alleged infringement, they filed a replication, and went into evidence to prove the originality and usefulness of the patent invention, and the acts of alleged piracy with which they sought to fix the Defendants. They afterwards brought on the canse to a hearing, when the Master of the Rolls made a decree dismissing the bill, with costs. The Plaintiffs now appealed against that decree. The nature of the invention and the particular circumstances of the case are stated in detail in Mr. Beavan's report, upon the hearing of the cause in the Court below. (1) But from the view taken by the Lord Chan-[435]-cellor in his judgment, it becomes unnecassary to refer to them particularly. Mr. Richards, Mr. James Parker, and Mr. Johnes, for the appeal. Mr. Wigram and Mr. Simons, in support of the decree. Upon the argument of the appeal, three questions were made : first, whether the patent, being for a principle, was not void upon that ground; secondly, assuming the patent to be good, whether there had in fact been any infringement, the burner of the Defendants being, as was contended, of a totally different construction from that of the Plaintiffs; and thirdly, whether the Plaintiffs, by omitting for the four years during which their bill was on the file to apply for an interlocutory injunction, had not absolutely deprived themselves of the right to ask for relief at the hearing, it being contended that the injunction could only proceed upon the foundation of a legal title, which title had not yet been established, and that an account was only given as incident and consequential to the injunction. With reference to the third point, upon which the Lord Chancellor's judgment entirely turned, the following cases were referred to ; Jesus College v. Bloome (3 Atk. 262 ; Amb. 54), Smith v. Cooke (3 Atk. 378), Turner v. Winter {1 T. R. 602), The Universities of Oxford oind Carnlrridge v. Richardson (6 Ves. 689), Baskett v. Parsons (stated in 6 Ves. 699; and see p. 707), Barry v. Barry (1 J, & W. 651), Baily v. Tai/ltn- (1 Rugs. & Mylne, 73), Crosdey v. The Derby Gas-Liyhi Company (4 Mylne & Keen, 72; and 3 Mylne & Craig, 428), MiUington v. Fox (3 Mylne & Craig, 338). [4361 The Plaintiffs insisted that, if the evidence was not sufficiently strong to entitle them at once to a perpetual injunction, yet, at all events, the bill ought to be retained for a year, with liberty to bring an action at law in the meantime. the lord chancellor [Cottenhaml The jurisdiction of this Court is founded upon legal rights: the Plaintiff coming into this Court on the assumption that he has the legal right, and the Court granting its assistance upon that ground. 4 MY. & CR. 437. BACON V. JONES 169 When a party applies for the aid of the Court, the application for an injunction is made either during the progress of the suit, or at the hearing; and in both cases, I apprehend, great latitude and discretion are allowed to the Court in dealing with the application. When the application is for an interlocutory injunction, several courses are open : the Court may at once grant the injunction, simpliciter, without more-a course which, though perfectly competent to the Court, is not very likely to be taken where the Defendant raises a question as to the validity of the Plaintiff's title; or it may follow the more usual, and, as I apprehend, more wholesome practice in such a case, of either granting an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Department of Social Security v Butler
...means other than as provided in the Act. (4)There is no provision for precautionary or Mareva-style relief. 14 The Court of Chancery 15In Bacon v. Jones (1839) 4 My. & Cr. 433 (41 E.R.167) the Lord Chancellor Lord Cottenham made observations on the powers of the Court of Chancery to grant a......
-
Siskina (Owners of cargo lately laden on board) v Distos Compania Naviera S.A.
...the plainciff on terns to proceed speedily, and so forth. In this regard reference may be made to such cases as Bacon v. Jones, 4 Mylne and Craig 433; Cory v. Yarmouth & Norwich Railway Co. (1884) 3 Hare 593; and Ridgway v. Roberts (1884) 4 Hare 106; to the Dreyfus case itself where the rig......
- Siskina (Owners of cargo lately laden on board) v Distos Compania Naviera S.A.
-
Department of Social Security v Butler
...(Consolidation) Act 1925, s 45(1). Supreme Court Act 1981, s 37. Cases referred to in judgment:Bacon v Jones [1839] 4 My & Cr 433; 41 ER 167. Balkanbank v Taher (No 2) [1995] 1 WLR Brenan v Preston [1852] 2 De GM & G 813; 42 ER 1090. British Airways Board v Laker [1985] AC 58. Castanho v Br......