Legal Opinion
Barber-Coleman Co. v. Withnell
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Decided July 10, 1928No. 1851PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MORTON, District Judge.
This bill for infringement of patents having been dismissed, with costs [14 F.(2d) 780], both parties have appealed from the clerk’s taxation of them.
The first item in dispute is the allowance of travel by the witness Moore from South-port, England, to Boston, where the case was heard. The clerk’s action is affirmed, on Stokely v. Mather (D. C.) 270 F. 592, 593.
The next item is the clerk’s refusal to allow travel from Manchester, England, to Boston, for the defendant Withnell, who attended the trial to assist in the defense, but was not called upon to testify. On this,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Ex Parte PetersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Newton v. Consolidated Gas Co. of NYSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Stockbridge Iron Co. v. Cone Iron WorksMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
- Victor Talking Mach. Co. v. Starr Piano Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1922
- Barber Colman Co. v. WithnellDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1926
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Summit Technology, Inc. v. Nidek Co., LtdCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
- Gotz v. Universal Products Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1943
- Prashker v. Beech Aircraft Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1959
- De Thomas v. Delta S.S. Lines, Inc.District Court, D. Puerto Rico · 1973
- Emerson v. National Cylinder Gas CompanyDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1957
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.