Legal Opinion

Thomas v. Electric Porcelain Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey

Decided March 12, 1902No. 190PublishedCited by 2 opinions

In Equity. On motion to vacate and modify interlocutory decree.

1Opinion of the CourtArchbadd, District Judge

(orally).1 There is no doubt in my mind as to my authority on a proper occasion to modify an interlocutory decree such as has been entered in this case, but I am not moved to do so by the affidavits and exhibits which have been laid before me. The question now sought to be raised is not one that was made by the pleading or evidence upon which the case was previously disposed of. hi Fed. 923. It was touched upon, it is true, at the final hearing, where it was suggested by counsel for the defendants that some of the insulators which he there produced were not of an infringing character, because…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Edison Electric Light Co. v. Westinghouse Electric & Manuf'g Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania · 1893
  2. Bowers v. Pacific Coast Dredging & Reclamation Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California · 1900
  3. Sprague Electric Ry. & Motor Co. v. Steel Motor Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania · 1898

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Walker Patent Pivoted Bin Co. v. MillerU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1906
  2. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Sangamo Electric Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1904

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

Powered by the Exa API