American Fibre-Chamois Co. v. Buckskin-Fibre Co.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Appeals from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Ohio. These were six suits in equity brought by the American Fibre-Chamois Company,- — two of them being' against the Buckskin-Fibre Company and Hiram ,1. Halle, its president; two against Samuel Williamson (executor of the estate of .Ralph E. Root:, deceased), Lee .McBride, and John M. McBride; and two against Peter G. Mueller, Charles E. Smith,-and Thomas P. McMahon,…
Read the full summary
Appeals from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Ohio. These were six suits in equity brought by the American Fibre-Chamois Company,- — two of them being' against the Buckskin-Fibre Company and Hiram ,1. Halle, its president; two against Samuel Williamson (executor of the estate of .Ralph E. Root:, deceased), Lee .McBride, and John M. McBride; and two against Peter G. Mueller, Charles E. Smith,-and Thomas P. McMahon, partners doing business as the Cleveland Fibre-Interlining Company. In each case the bill was dismissed on demurrer for…
1Opinion of the CourtTaft, Circuit Judge
While the action of the court with respect to the Heott patent has been assigned for error, no argument pointing out the error of the court below in its decision thereon has been made, orally or on the brief. Where counsel .for an appellant or a plaintiff in error liles a brief and makes an oral argument, and does not allude in either to any of his assignments of error, he must be taken to have waived it. This court cannot be expected to examine the assignment of error, and find the reasons for reversal itself. The action of the court below, in so far as it sustained the demurrer to that part…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Cochrane v. DeenerSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Risdon Iron & Locomotive Works v. MedartSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Richards v. Chase Elevator Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1895
- New York Belting & Packing Co. v. New Jersey Car Spring & Rubber Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Blessing v. Works.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1888
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by45 opinions
- Charles Peckat Mfg. Co. v. JacobsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1950
- International Mausoleum Co. v. SievertCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1914
- Friend v. Burnham & Morrill Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1932
- Dezendorf v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1938
- Krell Auto Grand Piano Co. v. Story & Clark Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1913
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.