Legal Opinion
Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. American Fur Refining Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey
Decided January 3, 1908PublishedCited by 3 opinions
In Equity. On exceptions to master’s report.
1Opinion of the Court
LANNING, District Judge.
By their bill of complaint the complainants sought an injunction to restrain the defendant from an alleged infringement of patent No. 383,258 for a machine for removing the stiff hairs from seal skins and other furs. A preliminary injunction was issued under an order dated August 28, 1902, which contained this provision:
“This order is upon condition that complainants give a bond with good and sufficient surety or sureties, to be approved by the court, in the sum of $15,-000, to indemnify the defendant corporation until the entry of an interlocutory decree upon final…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Tilghman v. ProctorSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Davis v. SchwartzSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Callaghan v. MyersSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Russell v. FarleySupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. American Fur Refining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1905
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- United Motors Service, Inc. v. Tropic-Aire, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1932
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. BurkeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1917
- United States v. Lewis Pub. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri · 1908