US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ |™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for


Subscribe to Cases that cite 296 U. S. 53 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Chandler & Price Co. v. Brandtjen & Kluge, Inc., 296 U.S. 53 (1935)

Chandler & Price Co. v. Brandtjen & Kluge, Inc.

No. 11

Argued October 16, 17, 1935

Decided November 11, 1935

296 U.S. 53


1. On application to intervene in equity, it is the better practice to present the applicant's proposed answer. P. 296 U. S. 56.

2. In a patent infringement suit brought against the user of a machine, the manufacturer of the accused article was permitted to intervene. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 296 U. S. 54

It thereupon answered, jointly with the defendant, denying infringement and challenging the plaintiff's patent, and furthermore set up, separately, a counterclaim against the plaintiff for infringement of another patent, owned solely by the intervener. There was no suggestion that the defendant had any interest in the counterclaim, or that the issues tendered by or that might arise out of it could not be adjudged in a separate suit.


(1) That the facts alleged in the petition for intervention were insufficient to show that the intervener was the real party in interest or entitled to intervene as a matter of equitable right. P. 296 U. S. 56.

(2) The counterclaim was rightly dismissed; the intervener is limited to the field of litigation open to the original parties. P. 296 U. S. 57.

(3) Equity Rule 30 does not authorize one given the privilege to intervene as party defendant to set up and enforce against the plaintiff a counterclaim not available to the original defendant and in which that defendant has no interest. P. 296 U. S. 58.

(4) Equity Rule 37, declaring that anyone claiming "an interest in the litigation" may be permitted to assert his right by intervention, means an interest in matters then in controversy between the plaintiff and original defendant; the purpose for which permission to intervene may be given is that the applicant may be put in position to assert in that suit a right of his in respect of something there in dispute between the original parties. P. 296 U. S. 59.

75 F.2d 472 affirmed.

Certiorari, 295 U.S. 724, to review the affirmance of a decree dismissing a counterclaim set up by an intervener in a patent infringement suit.

ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for Search for

Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



Browse By ->> Volume


Browse By ->> Year


  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™