Legal Opinion

Small v. Heywood-Wakefield Co.

District Court, D. Massachusetts

Decided December 20, 1937No. 3973PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

McLELLAN, District Judge.

Since the patent here involved (No. 1,826,532) has been adjudged valid and infringed (Heywood-Wakefield Company v. Small, 1 Cir., 87 F.2d 716; Small v. Heywood-Wakefield Company, D.C., 13 F.Supp. 825), and hearings as to damages are in progress before a master, I ought not to delay decision of these motions by reserving them for future consideration. In deciding them immediately after the arguments, I do not intend to minimize the difficulty or the importance of the questions here presented.

The defendant’s motions are two in number. The first seeks an amendment of its…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Gayler v. WilderSupreme Court of the United States · 1851
  2. Crown Die & Tool Co. v. Nye Tool & MacHine WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
  3. First National Bank of Jacksboro v. LasaterSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
  4. Mills Novelty Co. v. Monarch Tool & Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1931
  5. Becker v. General Chain Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1921

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Tuffy v. NicholsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1941

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API