Legal Opinion
Adamson v. Shaler
District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
Decided November 10, 1913PublishedCited by 14 opinions
In Equity. Suit by Cecil F. Adamson against Clarence A. Shaler and others. On motion to strike out counterclaim. Complainant filed his bill charging infringement of letters patent. Defendant has incorporated in his answer two counterclaims; the first alleging unfair competition in trade, the second, a cause of action f
1Opinion of the Court
GEIGER, District Judge.
Rule 30 Of the new equity rules (201 Fed. v, 118 C. C. A. v) deals with the form, contents, and effect of' answers in so far as they are or may be directly responsive to the aver-ments of the bill, and also provides that:
“The answer must state in short and simple form any counterclaim arising out of the transaction which is the subject-matter of the suit, and may, without cross-bill set out any set-off or counterclaim against the plaintiff which might be the subject-matter of an independent suit in equity against him, and such set-off or counterclaim so set up, shall…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Stuart v. HaydenSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Stuart v. HaydenCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1895
- Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co. of America v. National Electric Signaling Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1913
- Terry Steam Turbine Co. v. B. F. Sturtevant Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1913
3Cited by14 opinions
- Norris Et Ux. v. EikenberrySupreme Court of Florida · 1931
- Electric Boat Co. v. Lake Torpedo Boat Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1914
- Buffalo Specialty Co. v. VancleefDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1914
- Turner v. UtleySupreme Court of Florida · 1927
- Atlas Underwear Co. v. Cooper Underwear Co.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1913
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.