Cincinnati Siemens-Lungren Gas Illuminating Co. v. Western Siemens-Lungren Co.
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO. On February 25, 1889, the defendant in error, a corporation of the State of Illinois, commenced its action in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio to recover from the defendant, a corporation created under the laws of Ohio, the sum of $6922.64 for goods and merchandise. The defendant appeared and filed an answer and cross petition.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO. On February 25, 1889, the defendant in error, a corporation of the State of Illinois, commenced its action in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio to recover from the defendant, a corporation created under the laws of Ohio, the sum of $6922.64 for goods and merchandise. The defendant appeared and filed an answer and cross petition. A trial was had before a jury, which, on February 10, 1890, returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $5752.34. This amount was reduced…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Brewer
On November 9, 1887, the Siemens-Lungren Gas Illuminating Company of Chicago, a corporation of Illinois, which had acquired by contract from the Siemens-Lungren Company, of the State of Pennsylvania, the exclusive right and privilege of selling, placing, and operating in the State of Ohio the patented regenerative and other gas lamps, appliances, and fixtures, made, owned, or controlled by the Pennsylvania corporation, entered into a contract with certain individuals, • which contract was immediately thereafter transferred by them to the defendant company, giving the like exclusive rights for…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- United States v. BehanSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Howard v. Stillwell & Bierce Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Arkansas Valley Smelting Co. v. Belden Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore Railroad v. HowardSupreme Court of the United States · 1852
- The Amiable NancySupreme Court of the United States · 1818
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by67 opinions
- Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2016
- John Hetherington & Sons, Ltd. v. William Firth Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1911
- Sinclair Refining Co. v. Jenkins Petroleum Process Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1933
- The CaledoniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Anvil Mining Co. v. HumbleSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
62 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.