Martin v. New Trinidad Lake Asphalt Co.
District Court, D. New Jersey
At Law. Action by William D. Martin against the New Trinidad Lake Asphalt Company, Limited. On motion to strike out parts of answer.
1Opinion of the Court
HAIGHT, District Judge.
Although the notice of the motion is addressed to the whole of defendant’s second amended answer, I have considered that the motion is really to strike out only the seventh and eighth separate defenses, both because they were the only parts of the answer which were referred on the argument, and because a reply and a rejoinder have been filed to the other parts. In the seventh defense it is alleged that the patented processes, which were the subject-matter of the contract sued on, and of which the defendant was to have the exclusive use, were, subsequent to the making of…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Dale Tile Manufacturing Co. v. HyattSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Marston v. . SwettNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Skinner v. Walter A. Wood Mowing & Reaping MacHine Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1893
- McKay v. SmithU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1889
- White v. LeeU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1880
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Automatic Radio Mfg. Co. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1949
- The Armstrong Co. v. Shell Co. of Cal.California Court of Appeal · 1929
- Lathrop v. Rice & Adams CorporationDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1936
- Schutte & Koerting Co. v. Wheeler Condenser & EngineerIng Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1924
- Eskimo Pie Corporation v. National Ice Cream Co.District Court, W.D. Kentucky · 1927
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.