Skip to main content
· 4/8/1912

Crozier v. Fried. Krupp Aktiengesellschaft

Citations

  • 224 U.S. 290
  • 32 S. Ct. 488
  • 56 L. Ed. 771
  • 1912 U.S. LEXIS 2304

Syllabus

<p>Prior to the passage of the act of June 25, 1910, 36 Stat. 851, c. 423, a patentee, whose patent was infringed by an officer of the United States, could not sue the United States unless a contract to pay was implied; and the object of the statute is to afford a remedy under circumstances where no contract can be implied, but where the property rights of the inventor have been appropriated by an officer of the United States for its benefit and the acts of such officer ratified by the Government by the adoption of such act.</p> <p>Compensation for property taken under eminent domain need not necessarily be made in advance of the taking if adequate means be provided for a reasonably just and prompt ascertainment and payment thereof-.</p> <p>The duty to provide for payment of compensation for property taken under eminent domain may be adequately fulfilled by an assumption of such duty by a pledge either express or by necessary implication of the public good faith to that end.</p> <p>The act of June 25, 1910, having afforded a remedy for a patentee whose property rights have been appropriated by an officer of the United States for the benefit of the Government, such patentee is entitled to maintain an action in the Court of Claims to have his compensation determined, and the statute makes full and adequate provisions for the exercise of power of eminent domain.</p> <p>Since the enactment of the act of June 25, 1910, a patentee cannot maintain an action for injunction against an officer of the United States for infringing his patent for the benefit of. the Government; his remedy is to sue in the Court of Claims for compensation.</p> <p>In this case held that although this action was commenced before June 25, 1910, as it was confined solely to obtaining an injunction against future use, which cannot now be allowed, the action must be dismissed without prejudice to the right of the patentee to proceed in the Court of Claims for compensation under the act of 1910.</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • rejecting a constitutional challenge on the basis of the Takings Clause because the relevant statute provided a compensatory mechanism
  • describing the history of the 1910 Act
  • describing the history of the 1910 Act

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: White

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.