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.

George Vs. Victor Talking Machine Co.

George vs Victor Talking Machine Co.

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Dec-17-1934
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/95876

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
293 U.S. 377
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

George

Respondent

Victor Talking Machine Co.

Excerpt

.....47 u. s. 208 -209; craighead v. wilson, 18 how. 199, 59 u. s. 202 (explaining forgay v. conrad, 6 how. 201); beebe v. russell, 19 how. 283, 60 u. s. 287 ; humiston v. stainthorp, 2 page 293 u. s. 379 wall. 106; keystone manganese & iron co. v. martin, 132 u. s. 91 , 132 u. s. 93 , 132 u. s. 97 ; mcgourkey v. toledo & ohio central ry. co., 146 u. s. 536 , 146 u. s. 547 ; guarantee co. v. mechanics' savings bank & trust co., 173 u. s. 582 , 173 u. s. 586 ; simmons co. v. grier brothers co., 258 u. s. 82 , 258 u. s. 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. it is so ordered.

Full Judgment

George v. Victor Talking Machine Co. - 293 U.S. 377 (1934)
U.S. Supreme Court George v. Victor Talking Machine Co., 293 U.S. 377 (1934)

George v. Victor Talking Machine Co.

No. 128

Argued December 5, 1934

Decided December 17, 1934

293 U.S. 377

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

SYLLABUS

1. A decree of the District Court finding infringement of the common law right of property in a song, granting an injunction, and

Page 293 U. S. 378

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. 293 U. S. 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. 293 U. S. 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.

PER CURIAM.

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, 47 U. S. 208 -209; Craighead v. Wilson, 18 How. 199, 59 U. S. 202 (explaining Forgay v. Conrad, 6 How. 201); Beebe v. Russell, 19 How. 283, 60 U. S. 287 ; Humiston v. Stainthorp, 2

Page 293 U. S. 379

Wall. 106; Keystone Manganese & Iron Co. v. Martin, 132 U. S. 91 , 132 U. S. 93 , 132 U. S. 97 ; McGourkey v. Toledo & Ohio Central Ry. Co., 146 U. S. 536 , 146 U. S. 547 ; Guarantee Co. v. Mechanics' Savings Bank & Trust Co., 173 U. S. 582 , 173 U. S. 586 ; Simmons Co. v. Grier Brothers Co., 258 U. S. 82 , 258 U. S. 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.

It is so ordered.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial