Westinghouse Air Brake Co. v. Christensen Engineering Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
In Equity. Suit for infringement of patent. On demurrer to supplemental bill.
1Opinion of the Court
WALLACE, Circuit Judge.
The defendant cannot by a demurrer question the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant. The proper mode of raising that objection is by a special appearance for that purpose, and a plea or answer, so that the facts showing whether or not the defendant has been properly served with process can be made fully to appear. By appearing generally and interposing a demurrer the defendant waives the objection.
The supplemental bill is, however, objectionable upon other grounds assigned by the demurrer. It is an attempt to put in issue facts occurring…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Westinghouse Air Brake Co. v. Christensen Engineering Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1903
- Higy v. Columbia Rubber Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1883
- Gold & Stock Tel. Co. v. PearceU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1884
3Cited by12 opinions
- Dunkley Co. v. Central California CanneriesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1925
- Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Miami Copper Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1920
- Mueller v. CampbellDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 1946
- Chicago Grain Door Co. v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois · 1905
- Consolidated Rubber Tire Co. v. Diamond Rubber Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1915
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.