John Simmons Co. v. Grier Brothers Co.

Citations

• 258 U.S. 82
• 42 S. Ct. 196
• 66 L. Ed. 475
• 1922 U.S. LEXIS 2242

Syllabus

<p>1. A bill of review is called for only after a final decree «adjudicating upon the entire merits and leaving nothing further to be ^one except the execution of it. P. 88.</p> <p>2. ' An interlocutory decree may be modified or rescinded by the court at any time before final,decree. P. 88.</p> <p>3. Whether a decree is final or interlocutory'depends upon its essential purport and effect and not upon its characterization in pleadings. P.-89.</p> <p>4. A decree in a suit for patent infringement and unfair competition, dismissing the bill as to the former ground and granting a permanent injunction -as to the látter, but leaving the case pending for an accounting before a master, is interlocutory as an entirety, permitting the plaintiff, if diligent, to seek a rehearing of the dismissal. P. 89. Smith v. Vulcan Iron Works, 165 U. S. 518, and Hill v. Chicago & Evanston R. R. Co., 140 U. S. 52, distinguished.</p> <p>5. A proceeding to reopen by rehearing or bill of review a decree ' entered on a mandate of an appellate court should first be referred to that tribunal. P. 91.</p> <p>6. The fact that a party, to carry on his suit, moved execution of a mandate directing a decree partly adverse to himself, after his right of appeal was exhausted, did not make t}ie resulting decree a decree by consent. P. 91</p> <p>7. A decision of this court upholding a patent claim is ample ground for rehearing in a pending suit between other parties in which the same claim has been adjudged void. P. 91.</p> <p>8. Omission to apply to this court for certiorari to an interlocutory decree, held not'laches. P. 91.</p> <p>9. Abercrombe & Fitch Co. v. Baldwin, 245 U. S. 198, upholding claim 4 of Baldwin lamp patent, followed. P. 91.</p>