Benjamin Stiller, Appellants-Appellees v. John P. Hardman & John P. Hardman, Inc., Appellees-Appellants. Benjamin Stiller, Appellants-Appellees v. Nathan Silverman & Flex-A-Purse Corp., Appellees-Appellants, 324 F.2d 626 (2d Cir. 1963). · Go Syfert
Search
Benjamin Stiller, Appellants-Appellees v. John P. Hardman & John P. Hardman, Inc., Appellees-Appellants. Benjamin Stiller, Appellants-Appellees v. Nathan Silverman & Flex-A-Purse Corp., Appellees-Appellants, 324 F.2d 626 (2d Cir. 1963). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …suit on a 12 judgment 13 does not involve a federal question, however important federal questions may 14 have been to the resolution of the original controversy. at p. 628 ✓
69 citation events (32 in the last 25 years) across 28 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: D=Amico Dry Limited v. Primera Maritime (ca2, 2014-06-12)
Treatment trajectory · 1963 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1963 1994 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 43 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) D=Amico Dry Limited v. Primera Maritime (2×) also: Cited "see"
2d Cir. · 2014 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
suit on a 12 judgment 13 does not involve a federal question, however important federal questions may 14 have been to the resolution of the original controversy.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) D'Amico Dry Limited v. Primera Maritime (2×) also: Cited "see"
2d Cir. · 2014 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
suit on a 12 judgment 13 does not involve a federal question, however important federal questions may 14 have been to the resolution of the original controversy.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) United States v. Amc Entertainment
9th Cir. · 2008 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the mandate of an injunction issued by a federal district court runs throughout the united states.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ajasa v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
Bankr. E.D.N.Y. · 2021 · confidence medium
And as the Second Circuit has found, “[v]iolation of an injunctive order is cognizable in the court which issued the injunction, regardless of where the violation occurred.” Stiller v. Hardman, 324 F.2d 626, 628 (2d Cir. 1963).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cave v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
W.D. Va. · 2019 · confidence medium
To submit the question of disobedience to another tribunal, be it a jury or another court, would operate to deprive the proceeding of half its efficiency . . . . [therefore] the sole adjudication of contempts, and the punishments thereof [belong] exclusively . . . to each respective court”); Jones v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 666 F. App’x 766, 774 (11th Cir. 2016); Alderwoods Grp., Inc., v. Garcia, 682 F.3d 958 , 970–71 (11th Cir. 2012); Waffenschmidt v. MacKay, 763 F.2d 711, 716 (5th Cir. 1985); Stiller v. Hardman, 324 F.2d 626, 628 (2d Cir. 1963) (stating that “[v]iolation of an injunctive…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Evan Crocker v. Navient Solutions, L.L.C.
5th Cir. · 2019 · confidence medium
JAMES WILLIAM MOORE, ET AL., MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE ¶ 130.33 (explaining that “a suit on a judgment does not involve a federal question, however important 11 Case: 18-20254 Document: 00515169017 Page: 12 Date Filed: 10/22/2019 No. 18-20254 federal questions may have been to the resolution of the original controversy,” and citing Stiller v. Hardman, 324 F.2d 626, 628 (2d Cir. 1963)). 6 The 1970 Bankruptcy Code amendment to permit registration was labeled “an adaptation of 28 U.S.C. section 1963 ,” as it clearly was.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Evan Crocker v. Navient Solutions, L.L.C.
5th Cir. · 2019 · confidence medium
JAMES WILLIAM MOORE, ET AL., MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE ¶ 130.33 (explaining that “a suit on a judgment does not involve a federal question, however important federal questions may have been to the resolution of the original controversy,” and citing Stiller v. Hardman, 324 F.2d 626, 628 (2d Cir. 1963)). 6 6 An earlier version of MOORE’S has, since the adoption of Bankruptcy Rule 404(g) and then continuing with current Rule 4004(f), been cited by the Federal Rules Advisory Committee to explain each Rule.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Geltzer v. Brizinova (In re Brizinova)
Bankr. E.D.N.Y. · 2017 · confidence medium
The general rule in this Circuit and elsewhere is that a “violation of an injunctive order is cognizable in the court which issued the injunction, regardless of where the violation occurred.” Stiller v. Hardman, 324 F.2d 626, 628 (2d Cir. 1963).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wells Fargo Equipment Finance v. Nabil Asterbadi
4th Cir. · 2016 · confidence medium
Stanford v. Utley, 341 F.2d 266 , 270 (8th Cir. 1965); see also Home Port Rentals, 252 F.3d at 404 (noting that Congress explicitly enacted § 1963 to spare litigants the inefficiencies of obtaining a judgment on a judgment); Stiller v. Hardman, 324 F.2d 626, 628 (2d Cir. 1963) (noting that § 1963 provides “a speedier and more efficient mechanism for the enforcement of federal judgments” than the practice of obtaining a judgment on a judgment); S. Rep.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Rapid Settlements, LTD's Application for Approval of Transfer
Wash. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Co., 14 Ill. 2d 356, 372 , 152 N.E.2d 858 (1958); Stiller v. Hardman, 324 F.2d 626, 628 (2d Cir. 1963)). ¶31 In this case, the Benton County court issued the TRO on August 17 and it was served on 3B on August 20.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hunt v. Enzo Biochem, Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 2012 · confidence medium
See Waffenschmidt v. MacKay, 763 F.2d 711, 714 (5th Cir.1985) ("Nonparties who reside outside the territorial jurisdiction of a district court may be subject to that court’s jurisdiction if, with actual notice of the court’s order, they actively aid and abet a party in violating that order.”); Stiller v. Hardman, 324 F.2d 626, 628 (2d Cir.1963) (“Violation of an injunctive order is cognizable in the court which issued the injunction, regardless of where the violation occurred.”). .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alderwoods Group, Inc. v. Reyvis Garcia (2×)
11th Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
That said, although a federal court’s injunction applies nationwide, “[v]iolation of an injunctive order is cognizable in the court which issued the injunction.” Waffenschmidt v. MacKay, 763 F.2d 711, 716 (5th Cir. 1985) (quoting Stiller v. Hardman, 324 F.2d 626, 628 (2d Cir. 1963)) (alteration in original) (emphasis added) (quotation marks omitted); see also Cox, 239 F.3d at 915 (“the creditor who attempts to collect a discharged debt is violating not only a statute but also an injunction and is therefore in contempt of the bankruptcy court that issued the order of discharge.” (emph…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alderwoods Group, Inc. v. Reyvis Garcia (2×)
11th Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
That said, although a federal court’s injunction applies nationwide, “[vjiolation of an in-junctive order is cognizable in the court which issued the injunction.” Waffenschmidt v. MacKay, 763 F.2d 711, 716 (5th Cir.1985) (quoting Stiller v. Hardman, 324 F.2d 626, 628 (2d Cir.1963)) (alteration in original) (emphasis added) (quotation marks omitted); see also Cox, 239 F.3d at 915 (“the creditor who attempts to collect a discharged debt is violating not only a statute but also an injunction and is therefore in contempt of the bankruptcy court that issued the order of discharge.” (empha…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cianbro Corp. v. GEORGE H. DEAN, INC.
D. Me. · 2010 · confidence medium
Stiller v. Hardman, 324 F.2d 626, 627 (2d Cir.1963) (in action brought for declaratory judgment of noninfringement, court granted registration of damages judgment on a counterclaim stating that “we cannot read the statute to make registration under Section 1963 depend upon the form in which the action is brought rather than upon the nature of the judgment.”).
cited Cited as authority (rule) JTH Tax, Inc. v. Lee
E.D. Va. · 2007 · confidence medium
Stiller v. Hardman, 324 F.2d 626, 628 (2d Cir.1963).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Beck v. Gold Key Lease, Inc. (In Re Beck)
Bankr. E.D. Pa. · 2002 · confidence medium
Id. at 467 n. 4. 9 .See, e.g., Thomas v. General Motors Corporation, 522 U.S. 222, 236 , 118 S.Ct. 657 , 139 L.Ed.2d 580 (1998) ("Sanctions for violations of an injunction ... are generally adminis *167 tered by the court that issued the injunction.”); Klett v. Pim, 965 F.2d 587, 591 (8th Cir.1992) (concluding that district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over civil contempt claim because "it could only be brought in the court that issued the original injunction.”); The Lubrizol Corporation v. Exxon Corporation, 871 F.2d 1279, 1290 (5th Cir.1989) (quoting Dunham v. United St…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Anitas New Mexico v. Anitas Mexican Foods (2×) also: Cited "see"
4th Cir. · 2000 · confidence medium
Cir. 1983); Urban Indus., Inc. of Kentucky v. Thevis, 670 F.2d 981, 985 (11th Cir. 1982); Stiller v. Hardman , 324 F.2d 626, 628 (2d Cir. 1963); 18 Moore's Federal Practice 3d § 130.33 (1997).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Anita's New Mexico Style Mexican Food, Incorporated v. Anita's Mexican Foods Corporation, and Queen International Foods, Incorporated (2×) also: Cited "see"
4th Cir. · 2000 · confidence medium
(PATCO), 699 F.2d 539, 544 (D.C.Cir.1983); Urban Indus., Inc. of Kentucky v. Thevis, 670 F.2d 981, 985 (11th Cir.1982); Stiller v. Hardman, 324 F.2d 626, 628 (2d Cir.1963); 18 Moore’s Federal Practice 3d § 130.33 (1997).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tennessee Ex Rel. Sizemore v. Surety Bank, N.A. (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
N.D. Tex. · 1998 · confidence medium
While I decline to rule on the issue of whether this court lacks jurisdiction to enforce another court’s injunction, I note that the Supreme Court has recognized that sanctions for a violation of an injunction “are generally administered by the court that issued the injunction.” Baker v. General Motors Corp., 522 U.S. 222 ,-, 118 S.Ct. 657, 665 , 139 L.Ed.2d 580 (1998) (citing Stiller v. Hardman, 324 F.2d 626, 628 (2d Cir.1963), in which Second Circuit found that enforcement of injunction was properly left to issuing forum, regardless of where violation occurred).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Texaco Inc. v. Sanders (In Re Texaco Inc.)
Bankr. S.D.N.Y. · 1995 · confidence medium
Because contempt is an affront to the court issuing the order, enforcement of an injunction through a contempt proceeding must occur in the issuing jurisdiction regardless of the state in which the alleged violation of the court order may have occurred. (citing Waffenschmidt v. MacKay, 763 F.2d 711, 716 (5th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1056 , 106 S.Ct. 794 , 88 L.Ed.2d 771 (1986); Stiller v. Hardman, 324 F.2d 626, 628 (2nd Cir.1963)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Dinwiddie
W.D. Mo. · 1995 · confidence medium
See Leman v. Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co., 284 U.S. 448, 451 , 52 S.Ct. 238, 239-40 , 76 L.Ed. 389 (1932) (the mandate of an injunction issued by a federal district court runs nationwide); Waffenschmidt v. Mackay, 763 F.2d 711 (5th Cir.1985) (mandate of injunction issued by federal district court runs nationwide and violation of injunctive order is cognizable in court that issued injunction regardless of where violation occurred); Stiller v. Hardman, 324 F.2d 626, 628 (2d Cir.1963) ("[v]iolation of an injunctive order is cognizable in the court which issued the injunction regardless of where…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ryan v. Dow Chemical Co.
E.D.N.Y · 1991 · confidence medium
“The mandate of an injunction issued by a federal district court runs nationwide, and ‘[vjiolation of an injunctive order is cognizable in the court which issued the injunction regardless of where the violation occurred.’ ” Waffenschmidt v. Mackay, 763 F.2d 711, 716 (5th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1056 , 106 S.Ct. 794 , 88 L.Ed.2d 771 (1986) (citation omitted) (quoting Stiller v. Hardman, 324 F.2d 626, 628 (2d Cir.1963)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Pacific Reinsurance Management Corporation v. George Fabe
1st Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
Traditional injunctions (orders "to do") are not registrable under Sec. 1963, Stiller v. Hardman, 324 F.2d 626, 628 (2d Cir.1963), because that would be pointless: they act in personam nationwide.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Pacific Reinsurance Management Corp. v. Fabe
7th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
Traditional injunctions (orders “to do”) are not registrable under § 1963, Stiller v. Hardman, 324 F.2d 626, 628 (2d Cir.1963), because that would be pointless: they act in personam nationwide.
cited Cited as authority (rule) NY STATE NAT. ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN v. Terry
S.D.N.Y. · 1990 · confidence medium
See Waffenschmidt v. Mackay, supra, 763 F.2d at 718-19 ; Stiller v. Hardman, 324 F.2d 626, 628 (2d Cir.1963).
cited Cited as authority (rule) New York State National Organization for Women v. Terry
S.D.N.Y. · 1990 · confidence medium
See Waffenschmidt v. Mackay, supra, 763 F.2d at 718-19 ; Stiller v. Hardman, 324 F.2d 626, 628 (2d Cir.1963).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hamilton Allied Corp. v. Kerkau Manufacturing Co. (In Re Hamilton Allied Corp.)
Bankr. S.D. Ohio · 1988 · confidence medium
Accord: Stiller v. Hardman, 324 F.2d 626, 628 (2nd Cir.1963).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Waffenschmidt v. Mackay (3×) also: Cited "see"
5th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
The mandate of an injunction issued by a federal district court runs nationwide, Leman v. Krentler-Amold Hinge Last Co., 284 U.S. 448, 451 , 52 S.Ct. 238, 240 , 76 L.Ed. 389 (1932), and “[violation of an injunctive order is cognizable in the court which issued the injunction regardless of where the violation occurred.” Stiller v. Hardman, 324 F.2d 626, 628 (2d Cir.1963).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Waffenschmidt v. Mackay (3×) also: Cited "see"
1st Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
The mandate of an injunction issued by a federal district court runs nationwide, Leman v. Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co., 284 U.S. 448, 451 , 52 S.Ct. 238, 240 , 76 L.Ed. 389 (1932), and "[v]iolation of an injunctive order is cognizable in the court which issued the injunction regardless of where the violation occurred." Stiller v. Hardman, 324 F.2d 626, 628 (2d Cir.1963). 24 Enforcement of an injunction through a contempt proceeding must occur in the issuing jurisdiction because contempt is an affront to the court issuing the order.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Lafayette Radio Electronics Corp.
2d Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
See Leman v. Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co., 284 U.S. 448, 452 , 52 S.Ct. 238, 240 , 76 L.Ed. 389 (1932) (violation of injunction constitutes contempt of court which issued it and is actionable in that court); Stiller v. Hardman, 324 F.2d 626, 628 (2d Cir.1963) (same).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wards Co. v. Jonnet Development Corp.
2d Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
See Leman v. Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co., 284 U.S. 448, 452 , 52 S.Ct. 238, 240 , 76 L.Ed. 389 (1932) (violation of injunction constitutes contempt of court which issued it and is actionable in that court); Stiller v. Hardman, 324 F.2d 626, 628 (2d Cir.1963) (same).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Heyman v. Kline
D. Conn. · 1971 · confidence medium
The Court of Appeals for our Circuit, in Stiller v. Hardman, 324 F.2d 626, 628 (2 Cir. 1963), has squarely held that one in privity with a defendant may be pun ished for contempt by the court that issued the injunction, although the contemnor is not a party and is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court that issued the injunction: “The mandate of an injunction issued by a federal district court runs throughout the United States.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) John Thomas Stanford v. Everett Utley, D/B/A Utley Trucking Company and E. C. Hood
8th Cir. · 1965 · confidence medium
Hanes Supply Co. v. Valley Evaporating Co., supra, p. 30 of 261 F.2d; Stiller v. Hardman, 324 F.2d 626, 628 (2 Cir. 1963); Squeez-a-Purse Corp. v. Stiller, 31 F.R.D. 261, 263 (S.D.N.Y.1962); Juneau Spruce Corp. v. International Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union, supra, 128 F. Supp. 697, 700 (D.Hawaii 1955); 2 Moore’s Federal Practice, par. 1.04 [2], p. 28 and note 20 on that page; 7 Moore’s Federal Practice, par. 60.28 [1], p. 314, and par. 69.03 [3], p. 2411; Senate Report No. 1917, 83rd Cong., 2d Sess., U.S. Code Cong, and Adm. News (1954), p. 3142.
discussed Cited "see" D'Amico Dry Ltd. v. Primera Maritime (Hellas) Ltd. (2×)
2d Cir. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Stiller v. Hardman, 324 F.2d 626, 628 (2d Cir.1963) (“[A] suit on a judgment [rendered by a federal court exercising federal question jurisdiction] does not involve a federal question, however important federal questions may have been to the resolution of the original controversy.”).
cited Cited "see" Bedel v. Thompson
6th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Stiller v. Hardman, 324 F.2d 626, 628 (2d Cir.1963).
discussed Cited "see" Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
E.D. Va. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
Injunctions § 301 at p. 658 (1978) (footnote omitted); see Stiller v. Hardman, 324 F.2d 626, 627-28 (2d Cir.1963) (affirming New York federal court’s refusal to enforce injunctive portion of Ohio federal court judgment); Suburban O’Hare Comm’n v. Dole, 603 F.Supp. 1013, 1025-26 (N.D.Ill.1985) (dictum that enforcement of consent decree should be done by way of motion before court which issued decree).
discussed Cited "see" New York State National Organization for Women v. Terry
S.D.N.Y. · 1988 · signal: accord · confidence high
Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2960, at 589-90 (1973); Accord Stiller v. Hardman, 324 F.2d 626, 628 (2d Cir.1963) (“Violation of an injunctive order is cognizable in the court which issued the injunction, regardless of where the violation occurred.”). 10 .
cited Cited "see" Bedgood v. Cleland
D. Minnesota · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See Stiller v. Hardman, 324 F.2d 626, 628 (2d Cir.1963).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re: Kimberly Bruce
2d Cir. · 2023 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Stiller v. Hardman, 324 F.2d 626, 628 (2d Cir. 1963) (denying enforcement of an injunction in a New York court that was issued by an Ohio court because 15 “[v]iolation of an injunctive order is cognizable in the court which issued the injunction”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. AMC Entertainment, Inc. (2×)
9th Cir. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence low
Full relief required a nationwide injunction ordering Continental to cease its use of this discriminatory LAP."); see also Stiller v. Hardman, 324 F.2d 626 , 628 (2d Cir.1963) ("The mandate of an injunction issued by a federal district court runs throughout the United States."); 5 J.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re Zyprexa Injunction
E.D.N.Y · 2007 · signal: see also · confidence medium
“Nonparties who reside outside the territorial jurisdiction of a district court may be subject to that court’s jurisdiction if, with actual notice of the court’s order, they actively aid and abet a party in violating that order.” Waffenschmidt v. MacKay, 763 F.2d 711, 714 (5th Cir.1985); see also Stiller v. Hardman, 324 F.2d 626, 628 (2d Cir.1963) (“Violation of an injunctive order is cognizable in the court which issued the injunction, regardless of where the violation occurred.”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Baker v. General Motors Corp. (2×)
SCOTUS · 1998 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e. g., Stiller v. Hardman, 324 F. 2d 626, 628 (CA2 1963) (nonrendition forum enforces monetary relief portion of a judgment but leaves enforcement of injunctive portion to rendition forum). *237 B With these background principles in view, we turn to the dimensions of the order GM relies upon to stop Elwell's testimony.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Douglas Klett v. Robert Pim John Humphrey J. Dennis Roach United States of America
8th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Stiller v. Hardman, 324 F.2d 626 (2d Cir.1963) (Ohio judgment nominally registrable in New York district courts, but injunctive portion not enforceable); Sullivan v. United States, 4 F.2d 100 (8th Cir.1925) (court that issues injunction is court against which contempt is committed and which has jurisdiction to issue sanction).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Benjamin Stiller, Appellants-Appellees
v.
John P. Hardman and John P. Hardman, Inc., Appellees-Appellants. Benjamin Stiller, Appellants-Appellees v. Nathan Silverman and Flex-A-Purse Corporation, Appellees-Appellants
27976_1.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Nov 20, 1963.
324 F.2d 626
Published

324 F.2d 626

Benjamin STILLER et al., Appellants-Appellees,
v.
John P. HARDMAN and John P. Hardman, Inc., Appellees-Appellants.
Benjamin STILLER et al., Appellants-Appellees,
v.
Nathan SILVERMAN and Flex-A-Purse Corporation, Appellees-Appellants.

No. 53.

No. 54.

Docket 27976.

Docket 27931.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued October 15, 1963.

Decided November 20, 1963.

J. William Freeman, Akron, Ohio (Floyd H. Crews of Darby & Darby, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiffs-appellants-appellees.

David B. Kirschstein of Kirschstein, Kirschstein & Ottinger, New York City, for defendants-appellees-appellants.

Before WATERMAN, HAYS and MARSHALL, Circuit Judges.

HAYS, Circuit Judge.

[*~626]1

Stiller sought to register[1] in the Southern and Eastern districts of New York a judgment recovered against Squeez-A-Purse Corporation in a patent infringement suit in the Northern District of Ohio. The judgment sought to be registered and enforced in these proceedings held Stiller's patent valid and infringed and awarded him damages in the amount of $47,000 and an injunction enjoining Squeez-A-Purse Corporation, its officers, agents and privies from further infringement.[2] The New York district courts permitted registration of the entire judgment but refused enforcement of the injunctive portion thereof. The parties cross appealed from the orders entered by the district courts. By stipulation the two cases were consolidated on appeal. We affirm the orders from which the parties have appealed.

2

Stiller moved in the Ohio district court to hold in contempt certain alleged privies of Squeez-A-Purse, to wit, Nathan Silverman, principal stockholder of Squeez-A-Purse, John P. Hardman and John P. Hardman, Inc., sole suppliers of Squeez-A-Purse, and Flex-A-Purse Corporation, a newly organized corporation controlled by Silverman. The Ohio district court held that it was without jurisdiction over the alleged privies.

3

The registration statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1963 (1958), authorizes the registration only of "[a] judgment in an action for the recovery of money or property." The insertion of the critical phrase "for the recovery of money or property" was explained in the Reviser's Note as intended "to exclude judgments in divorce actions, and any other actions, the registration of which would serve no useful purpose." Note on Legislative History following 28 U.S.C. § 1963 (1958).

4

Defendants urge that the judgment should have been denied registration. They argue that Section 1963 authorizes registration only if the original proceeding was an action for money or property. Since the Ohio action was one for a declaratory judgment of noninfringement, the argument continues, registration of the judgment awarded the patentee on his counterclaim should have been refused. Compare Gitlin v. Gitlin, 15 F.R.D. 485 (E.D.N.Y.1954) (registration of alimony decree entered in divorce action denied), with Gullet v. Gullet, 188 F.2d 719 (5th Cir. 1951) (registration of maintenance decree entered in suit for separate maintenance upheld). The fault of the argument lies in a devotion to too literal a reading of the statute, a reading which ignores the purpose of the legislation. We have no doubt that the term "action" in Section 1963 is meant to embrace legal proceedings instituted by way of counterclaim as well as through the filing of a complaint. To hold otherwise would be to attribute to Congress the adoption of a distinction which is wholly without justification. And we cannot read the statute to make registration under Section 1963 depend upon the form in which the action is brought rather than upon the nature of the judgment. See S.Rep.No. 1917, 83 Cong., 2d Sess. (1954), in 2 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News, pp. 3142, 3143 (1954).

[*~627]5

The patentee, Stiller, argues that, in spite of the limited language of Section 1963, a judgment for an injunction can be registered and, after registration, can be enforced. He takes the further position that even if an injunction alone cannot be registered, a judgment which includes not only an injunction but an award for the recovery of money or property, is registrable and such a judgment is enforceable in its entirety. This interpretation is clearly contrary to the intent of the draftsmen since it would practically eliminate the exclusionary effect of the limiting phrase — permitting, for example, the registration of a divorce decree that also provided for alimony. See Gitlin v. Gitlin, supra. Stiller also contends that the injunction is a decree for the recovery of property — the exclusive use of his patent. To adopt this point of view would completely emasculate the limiting provision and would not accord with the ordinary meaning of the phrase "recovery of property." See Note, Registration of Federal Judgments, 42 Iowa L.Rev. 285, 290 (1957).

6

Aside from the limiting language of the statute itself, a consideration of the necessities which led to the enactment of Section 1963 reveals a significant difference between money judgments and injunction orders which may well account for the omission of injunctions from the privilege of registration.

[*~628]7

In the absence of a statute providing for the registration or summary enforcement of foreign judgment, see Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, it is usually necessary to bring an action of debt on a foreign money judgment and to obtain a new judgment of the forum before execution will issue. See generally Paulsen, Enforcing the Money Judgment of a Sister State, 42 Iowa L.Rev. 202 (1957). This procedure created particular difficulties for claimants who had originally grounded federal jurisdiction on the existence of a federal question; for a suit on a judgment does not involve a federal question, however important federal questions may have been to the resolution of the original controversy. 2 Moore, Federal Practice ¶1.04 [2], at 28 n. 20 (2d ed. 1962). Section 1963, which was adopted in 1948 during the revision of the Judicial Code, eliminates this jurisdictional problem, as well as providing a speedier and more efficient mechanism for the enforcement of federal judgments.

[*628]8

The situation with respect to injunctions is quite different. The mandate of an injunction issued by a federal district court runs throughout the United States. Leman v. Krentler-Arnold Co., 284 U.S. 448, 52 S.Ct. 238, 76 L.Ed. 389 (1932). Violation of an injunctive order is cognizable in the court which issued the injunction, regardless of where the violation occurred. Ibid. In the present case, for example, the Ohio district court had power to punish a violative infringement though the infringement took place in New York. There is therefore no such need for registration of injunction orders as there is for registration of the money judgment.

[*~627]9

Thus, if the Ohio court had only issued an injunction order its judgment order would not have been registrable, but inasmuch as the Ohio judgment contained, together with an injunction order, an award for damages, the entire Ohio judgment is nominally registrable but the injunctive portion thereof is not enforceable.

10

In view of our interpretation of Section 1963 we affirm the decisions below upholding registration of the entire Ohio judgment, permitting enforcement of the award for damages and denying enforcement of the injunctive portion of the judgment.

Notes:

1

"A judgment in an action for the recovery of money or property now or hereafter entered in any district court which has become final by appeal or expiration of time for appeal may be registered in any other district by filing therein a certified copy of such judgment. A judgment so registered shall have the same effect as a judgment of the district court of the district where registered and may be enforced in like manner

"A certified copy of the satisfaction of any judgment in whole or in part may be registered in like manner in any district in which the judgment is a lien." 28 U. S.C. § 1963 (1958).

2

Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(d) provides:

"Every order granting an injunction and every restraining order * * * is binding only upon the parties to the action, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and upon those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the order by personal service or otherwise."