Legal Opinion · Dissent

Nathan Manufacturing Co. v. Edna Smelting & Refining Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided February 11, 1909No. 1Published

Appeal by the defendant, the Ii. A. Rogers Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the "23d-day of Hay, 1908, upon the decision of the court rendered ■ after a trial at the New York Special Term. -

1Dissent

Scott, J. (dissenting):

I am unable to concur in the affirmance of this judgment because I cannot find any substantial distinction between this case and the leading case of Singer Mfg. Co. v. June Mfg. Co. (163 U. S. 169) which applied to a similar state of facts a rule which has been generally accepted by the courts and which if applied to the present case requires a reversal of the judgment.

The appellant frankly admits that the injector which it sells is what is .termed in the- brief a “ Chinese ” copy of the injector manufactured and sold by the plaintiff. That appellant has a right to…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Singer Manufacturing Co. v. June Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1896
  2. Fischer v. . BlankNew York Court of Appeals · 1893
  3. Westcott Chuck Co. v. Oneida National Chuck Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1907

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

Powered by the Exa API