Johnson v. Brooklyn & C. R.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York
In Equity. On motion to punish for contempt. Birdsell v. Shaliol, 112 U. S. 487, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 244; Suffolk Co. v. Hayden, 3 Wall. 315; Root v. Railway Co., 105 U. S. 189; Needham v. Oxley, 8 Law T. (N. S.) 604; Frearson v. Loe, 9 Ch. Div. 48; Boring Co. v. Marble Co., 2 Fed. Rep. 356; Boring Co. v. Sheldon, 1 Fed. Rep. 870; Belting Co. v. Magowan, 27 Fed. Rep. 111; Powder Co. v. Powder Co., 9 Fed.
Read the full summary
In Equity. On motion to punish for contempt. Birdsell v. Shaliol, 112 U. S. 487, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 244; Suffolk Co. v. Hayden, 3 Wall. 315; Root v. Railway Co., 105 U. S. 189; Needham v. Oxley, 8 Law T. (N. S.) 604; Frearson v. Loe, 9 Ch. Div. 48; Boring Co. v. Marble Co., 2 Fed. Rep. 356; Boring Co. v. Sheldon, 1 Fed. Rep. 870; Belting Co. v. Magowan, 27 Fed. Rep. 111; Powder Co. v. Powder Co., 9 Fed. Rep. 316; Goodyear v. Mullee, 5 Blatchf. 429; Hamilton v. Simons, 5 Biss. 77; Wells v. Railway Co., 19 Fed. Rep. 20; Craig v. Fisher, 2 Sawy. 345; McKay v. Machine Co., 20 O. G. 372, 12 Fed. Rep.…
1Opinion of the CourtLacombe, J.
Complainant’s patent (Newman, No. 117,198, July 18, 1871) is for “the combination of an oscillating platform, arranged for operation by the weight of the draught animals (of a horse car) with a (horizontally moving) switch.” . In the combination only was found novelty and invention sufficient to induce the court to sustain the patent. Johnson, v. Railroad Co., 33 Fed. Rep. 499. Rocking or oscillating platforms generally, and as devices for automatic switches, were known to the art before the date of Newman’s invention. Horizontally moving switches were also old. It was only the inventor’s…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Root v. Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1882
3Cited by7 opinions
- Morton Globus v. Law Research Service, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1968
- Local 127, United Shoe Workers of America v. Brooks Shoe Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1962
- Local 127, United Shoe Workers Of America, Afl-Cio v. Brooks Shoe Manufacturing CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1962
- American Safety Device Co. v. Kurland Chemical Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1934
- American Sulphite Pulp Co. v. Hinckley Fibre Co.District Court, N.D. New York · 1914
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.