Legal Opinion
Huntington Dry-Pulverizer Co. v. Newell Universal Mill Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
Decided April 6, 1901PublishedCited by 2 opinions
In Equity. Suit for infringement of patents. On final hearing.
1Opinion of the Court
WHEELER, District Judge.
This suit is brought for alleged in* fringement of the first two claims of the patents Nos. 277,134, dated May 8, 1883, and 325,804, dated September 8, 1885, each for a crushing mill.
“The mill consists essentially of: First, a circular pan, the vertical sides of which are lined with a die; second, of rollers, suspended from above by means of vertical shafts upon which they are mounted, the method of suspension and mounting being such as to allow the rollers to swing freely to and from the center of the pan without coming in contact with the bottom *270of the pan.; third,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Elizabeth v. Pavement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Delemater v. HeathCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1893
- Campbell v. Mayor of New YorkU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1891
- Huntington Dry Pulverizer Co. v. Whittaker Cement Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey · 1898
- Whitaker Cement Co. v. Huntington Dry Pulverizer Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1899
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Huntington Dry Pulverizer Co. v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey · 1902
- Zumbro, Inc. v. Merck & Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1993