Legal Opinion

Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. Mischke

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Decided November 27, 1899PublishedCited by 3 opinions

In Equity. This was a suit in equity for infringement of a patent. On final hearing.

1Opinion of the Court

WHEELER, District Judge.

The patent here, No. 383,258, dated May 22, 1888, and granted to John W. Sutton for a machine for removing water hairs from fur skins, was before this court held by Judge Townsend, in Unhairing Co. v. Bowsky (C. C.) 95 Fed. 474. It is there fully explained, and the eighth claim, now relied upon here, was upheld, and found to have been infringed. That claim is for:

“(8) The combination of a fixed stretcher bar, means for intermittently feeding the skin over the same, a stationary card above the stretcher bar, a rotary separating brush below the same, and mechanism,…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. BowskyU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1899

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. American Fur Refining Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey · 1902
  2. Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. American Fur Refining Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey · 1903
  3. Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. Nearseal Unhairing Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1901

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

Powered by the Exa API