Candas v. Agnini

CAFFEY, District Judge.

The plaintiffs have furnished no evidence. They rest on the affidavits submitted by the defendants. Even so, the case is close.

The sole issue which has been discussed by counsel is whether, when Michaels was served with process, the defendant firm had a “regular and established place of business” in this district.

The plaintiffs rely chiefly on International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 579, 34 S.Ct. 944, 58 L.Ed. 1479. That, however, was not a patent suit; nor was the question involved in it determinable under section 109 of title 28 of the United States Code…