Legal Opinion
Child v. Boston & Fairhaven Iron Works
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts
Decided January 25, 1884PublishedCited by 3 opinions
At Law.
1Opinion of the CourtLowell, J.
The parties have agreed that if, upon the facts submitted, the action can be further maintained, it shall stand for trial; *259if not, a verdict shall be entered for the defendant. It is an action at law for infringement of two claims of a patent owned by the plaintiff, After it was begun the plaintiff filed his bill on the equity side of the court for precisely the same infringement, which consisted of making and selling certain printing presses, and Judge Shepley, after a full hearing, entered an interlocutory decree for an injunction, and an account of the profits and damages. Child v. Boston…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Lovejoy v. MurraySupreme Court of the United States · 1866
- Birdsall v. CoolidgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Farrington v. PayneNew York Supreme Court · 1818
- Fowle v. New Haven & Northampton Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
- Folsom v. ClemenceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Aladdin Mfg. Co. v. Mantle Lamp Co. of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1941
- Metallic Rubber Tire Co. v. Hartford Rubber Works Co.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1917
- Child v. Boston & F. Iron WorksU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1874