Legal Opinion

Armstrong v. De Forest

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided July 12, 1926No. 390PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHough, Circuit Judge

(after- stating the facts as above). The present argument for plaintiffs has two parts, viz.: (1) If the instrument creating American Company’s license, and annexed to the bill, be examined, it will be seen that American Company possesses thereunder rights of use, manufacture, and sale far greater than those remaining in De Forest Company. Wherefore a reasonable interpretation of the statute would. render American Company, as the major party in interest, a sufficient party defendant in suit under Rev. St. § 4915, if such suit be regarded as in personam. (2) A suit under that statute is,…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Pennoyer v. NeffSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  2. Arndt v. GriggsSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
  3. Butterworth v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
  4. Freeman v. AldersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  5. The Title & Document Restoration Co. v. KerriganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Parker Rust-Proof Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1939
  2. Coe v. Hobart Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1939
  3. Hazeltine Corporation v. WhiteCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1934
  4. Nachod & United States Signal Co. v. Automatic Signal Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1939
  5. Standard Oil Company v. Montecatini Edison SpADistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1972

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API