From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dysart v. Remington Rand, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Connecticut
Feb 29, 1952
15 F.R.D. 60 (D. Conn. 1952)

Opinion

         Action involving patent. The defendant was ordered to pay costs on reference to special master. The plaintiffs submitted itemized bill of costs. To some of the items therein the defendant objected. The District Court, Smith, J., held that where defendant had cooperated in development of facts before special master on accounting, premium for bond for costs and fees for probate court copies and transcripts would be allowed, but attorneys' expenses, cost of photostats and expert witness fees would be disallowed.

         Judgment in accordance with opinion.

         See also D.C., 96 F.Supp. 655.

          Robert P. Butler, Arthur E. Howard, Hartford, Conn., for plaintiffs.

          Francis J. McNamara, New York City, Edwin T. Bean, Buffalo, N.Y., Cummings & Lockwood, Stamford, Conn., for defendant.


          SMITH, District Judge.

         Defendant has been ordered to pay the costs on the reference to the Special Master.

         Plaintiffs have submitted a bill of costs, to the following items of which defendant objects:

Attorneys' expenses

978.16

Photostats

31.99

Transcripts

1,500.50

Expert witnesses' fees

35,973.75

         Plaintiffs contend for the allowance of these items on two theories, either because [1] the action is claimed to be in the nature of a patent infringement action, or [2] that, because of the oppression of the plaintiffs by defendant throughout the long history of these proceedings, costs should be allowed as between solicitor and client under Rule 54[d], 28 U.S.C.A.

          The first ground must be rejected, for defendant is not an infringer, but one using the patented device by permission.

          It would appear that the second ground, also is not sustainable. It is true that there is a finding of oppression in the defendant's course of action up to the trial in 1941. The proceedings here involved, however, are those before the Master on the accounting. Here the course of the proceedings has been under the control of the plaintiffs and the Master has affirmatively found that the defendant has cooperated in the development of the facts before him.

         There has been no obstruction or oppression in determining the value of the use. That conflict was one quite likely to occur under the terms of the original contract, and its resolution before the Master may well be treated as other litigation costs normally borne by litigants. Attorneys' fees and expert-witness fees are normally borne by the party incurring the expense. Transcript fees necessary to the proper presentation of the case are now recognized, however, as taxable court costs.

         The following items of the amended motions de plaintiff's expenses are hereby allowed:

1.

Premium for bond for costs

$75.00

2.

Fees for Probate Court Copies

42.00

9.

Transcripts

135.50

10.

Transcripts

1,365.00

         The remaining items are disallowed.


Summaries of

Dysart v. Remington Rand, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Connecticut
Feb 29, 1952
15 F.R.D. 60 (D. Conn. 1952)
Case details for

Dysart v. Remington Rand, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:DYSART et al. v. REMINGTON RAND, Inc.

Court:United States District Court, D. Connecticut

Date published: Feb 29, 1952

Citations

15 F.R.D. 60 (D. Conn. 1952)

Citing Cases

Perlman v. Feldmann

It is in accord with previous rulings of this court. See Weiss v. Smith, D.C.Conn. 1952, 103 F. Supp. 736;…