Shelby Steel Tube Co. v. Delaware Seamless Tube Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania
In Equity.
1Opinion of the Court
ARCHBALD, District Judged.1
The patent in suit is for a mechanical device for making metal tubing. It was granted to R. C. Stiefel December 10, 1895, and title is now vested in the complainants by sundry mesne conveyances. This is denied by the answer, and contested here; but is sufficiently established. The objection to the assignment from the patentee, that it was not proved by both the subscribing witnesses, is captious. It is elementary law that hut one need be called, except where there is some special reason. 17 Cyc. 435. Still less is there in the suggestion that there is no proof of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Elizabeth v. Pavement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1878
- MacHine Co. v. MurphySupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- IVES v. HamiltonSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Hoyt v. HorneSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Penfield v. Chambers Bros. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1899
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- McClaskey v. Harbison-Walker Refractories Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1943
- United States v. United States Steel Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1915
- Delaware Seamless Tube Co. v. Shelby Steel Tube Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1908
- Ramsden v. KnowlesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1907
- Auditorium Ventilating Corp. v. Greater Rochester Properties, Inc.District Court, W.D. New York · 1929
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.