Cumming v. Baker
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of California.
1Opinion of the Court
ROvSS, Circuit Judge.
This action was brought to recover damages for the alleged infringement of letters patent granted July 24, 1888, to George Cumming, for an “improved portable forge,” and by him assigned to the plaintiff in error. On the trial in the court below, and at the close of all the evidence, the counsel for the defendant requested the court to direct a verdict for the defendant, on the ground of noninfringement. The motion was granted, and the jury was so instructed. Judgment for the defendant followed.
If the judgment was right, the ground of the court’s action is unimportant.
In…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- The ConquerorSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Boyd v. Janesville Hay Tool Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Ransome v. HyattCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1895
- Rich v. Baldwin, Tuthill & BoltonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1904
- Ney v. Ney Manuf'g Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1895
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Denaro v. Maryland Baking Co.District Court, D. Maryland · 1930
- Barlow v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1936
- Ventilated Cushion & Spring Co. v. D'ArcyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1915
- In re WickershamCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1935
- Le Roy v. Nicholas Power Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1917