Legal Opinion

Lockwood v. Cleveland

United States Circuit Court

Decided March 25, 1884PublishedCited by 8 opinions

On motion for Rehearing.

1Opinion of the CourtNixon, J.

This is a motion to allow one of the defendants to open a decree entered in the above ease, to amend the answer, and to take new proofs. The original bill was filed under the provisions of section 4918 of the Revised Statutes. The only question involved was the one of priority of invention between two patentees. An interference had been declared in the patent-office, and after many conflicting opinions, in the progress of the case, an ultimate decision had been reached adverse to Lockwood and in favor of Horton. Not satisfied with the result, the complainant came into this court, praying for…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Walden v. BodleySupreme Court of the United States · 1840
  2. Mowry v. WhitneySupreme Court of the United States · 1872
  3. Foster v. LindsayU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri · 1875

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Palmer Pneumatic Tire Co. v. LozierCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1898
  2. Perkins v. Lawrence Sperry Aircraft Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1932
  3. Bassick Mfg. Co. v. Adams Grease Gun Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1931
  4. Dittgen v. Racine Paper Goods Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Wisconsin · 1910
  5. Cutler-Hammer Mfg. Co. v. General Electric Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1924

3 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