Magic Ruffle Co. v. Elm City Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut
In equity.
1Opinion of the Court
SHIPMAN, District Judge.
The parties in this case are corporations. The complainants were created under the laws of the state of New York, and the defendants were incorporated under the laws of the state of Connecticut, and are established at New Haven, in this district. The bill alleges, that the complainants are and have been since September 18th, 1860, the owners of letters patent number 28.244, granted to George B. Arnold, on May 8th, 1860, for a new and useful “improvement in ruffles.” and were also, in the month of February. 1863, the owners of three other patents, theretofore issued to…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rich v. HotchkissSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1844
3Cited by8 opinions
- Henry v. A. B. Dick Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Washburn & Moen Manuf'g Co. v. Cincinnati Barbed Wire Fence Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio · 1890
- American Box Mach. Co. v. CrosmanU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1892
- McKay v. SmithU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1886
- Mudgett v. ThomasU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio · 1893
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.