Legal Opinion

Carson v. American Smelting & Refining Co.

District Court, W.D. Washington

Decided November 21, 1923No. 144PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

NÉTERER, District Judge

(after stating the facts as above).

The purpose of plaintiff’s invention, patent No. 1,149,495, is to feed material into the furnace—

“primarily to make a lining for the furnace, though primarily it gives up any values it may contain to the hath.” “A moving temporary lining of the furnace chambers.” “A dike shutting the molten interior of the metallic bath away from contact with the walls of the furnace chambers.”,

Patent 1,302,307:

“To protect the walls of a reverberatory furnace by feeding ores into the furnace through feeding ports leading into the upper part, where it…

2Cases cited124 opinions

  1. The Barbed Wire PatentSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  2. Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
  3. Diamond Rubber Co. of New York v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
  4. Topliff v. TopliffSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  5. Atlantic Works v. BradySupreme Court of the United States · 1883

119 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Carson Inv. Co. v. Anaconda Copper Mining Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1928
  2. Carson Inv. Co. v. Anaconda Copper Mining Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1928
  3. Carson Inv. Co. v. Calumet & Arizona Mining Co.District Court, D. Arizona · 1928

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

Powered by the Exa API