Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Humiston Vs. Stainthorp

Humiston vs Stainthorp

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1864
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/81227

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
69 U.S. 106
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Humiston

Respondent

Stainthorp

Excerpt

humiston v. stainthorp - 69 u.s. 106 (1864) 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.

Full Judgment

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

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial