National Cash-Register Co. v. Leland
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts
These were four actions at law, brought by the National Cash-Register Company; the first three being against Arthur S. Leland and others, and the fourth against James H. Wright and others. The case was heard upon a motion by plaintiff for default because of the failure of the defendants to answer certain interrogatories filed in accordance with the state statute.
Read the full summary
These were four actions at law, brought by the National Cash-Register Company; the first three being against Arthur S. Leland and others, and the fourth against James H. Wright and others. The case was heard upon a motion by plaintiff for default because of the failure of the defendants to answer certain interrogatories filed in accordance with the state statute. The right to proceed under the state statute was claimed under the act of congress of March 9, 1892, which reads as follows: “Chapter 14. An act to provide an additional mode of taking depositions of witnesses in causes pending in…
1Opinion of the Court
ALDRICH, District Judge.
We will assume, for the purposes of these cases, that the statutory patent action on the case for damages for infringement of patent rights, under section 4919 of the Revised Statutes, is to be treated as the common-law action of case; and the question presented arises upon the plaintiff’s motion for default, grounded upon the defendants’ failure to answer interrogatories, filed by the plaintiff against the defendants in accordance with the provisions of section 49 of the practice act of Massachusetts. It is provided by section 861 of the Revised Statutes of the United…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Indianapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. HorstSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Campbell v. HaverhillSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Ex Parte FISKSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- NUDD v. Burrows, AssigneeSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Phelps v. OaksSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. WilderCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1899
- United States v. Fifty Boxes & Packages of LaceDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1899
- Caspary v. CarterU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1897
- Zych v. American Car & Foundry Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri · 1904
- E. H. Rohde Leather Co. v. Duncan & Sons, Inc.District Court, W.D. Washington · 1926
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.