Holmes v. McGill
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of ISTew York. George W. McGill, & citizen of the state of New York and resident of the city of New York, brought four actions at law against Holmes, Booth & Hay-dens, a Connecticut corporation, before.the United States circuit court for the Southern district of New York, to recover royalties under the contracts annexed to the complaints for the succeeding quarters of-a year from April 1, 1895, to-…
Read the full summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of ISTew York. George W. McGill, & citizen of the state of New York and resident of the city of New York, brought four actions at law against Holmes, Booth & Hay-dens, a Connecticut corporation, before.the United States circuit court for the Southern district of New York, to recover royalties under the contracts annexed to the complaints for the succeeding quarters of-a year from April 1, 1895, to- July 1, 189G. The four suits were, by order of court, consolidated, and were referred by written consent of the parties…
1Opinion of the CourtShipman, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above), in 1870, McGill was manufacturing metallic paper'fas tenet's known as ‘‘McGill's Fasteners” under patents issued to liitnself as inventor, the fundamental patent having been issued July 24, 1860; and on March 23,1870, entered Into a written contract with the defendant, a corporation largely engaged in the manufacture of brass and copper articles. The portions of the contract which relate to the present controversy are as follows:
■‘Whereas, George W. McGill is now the sole owner of letters patent, of the Gutted ¡hatos No. 50,587, issued to him July 21, 1800,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Marston v. . SwettNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
- Eureka Company v. Bailey CompanySupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Marston v. . SwettNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Stott v. RutherfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- White v. LeeU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1882
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Wynne v. AllenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
- The Armstrong Co. v. Shell Co. of Cal.California Court of Appeal · 1929
- Martin v. New Trinidad Lake Asphalt Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1919
- Universal Rim Co. v. ScottDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1922
- Wyman v. Monolith Portland Cement Co.California Court of Appeal · 1935
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.