Everest v. Buffalo Lubricating Oil Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York
This cause was argued at the June circuit, 1884, and resulted in a decision for the complainant. 20 Fed. Rep. 848. In November, 1884, the defendant presented a petition for a rehearing, which, after argument and due consideration, was denied. 22 Fed. Rep. 252. On the thirtieth of March, 1887, the master submitted his report, in which he finds the complainant entitled to nominal damages only. The complainant filed exceptions to this report.
Read the full summary
This cause was argued at the June circuit, 1884, and resulted in a decision for the complainant. 20 Fed. Rep. 848. In November, 1884, the defendant presented a petition for a rehearing, which, after argument and due consideration, was denied. 22 Fed. Rep. 252. On the thirtieth of March, 1887, the master submitted his report, in which he finds the complainant entitled to nominal damages only. The complainant filed exceptions to this report. The cause is now before the court upon these exceptions, and also upon a motion by the defendant to dismiss the bill on the ground that the patent is void…
1Opinion of the CourtCoxe, J.
The motion to dismiss the. complaint is, in reality, but a second motion for a rehearing. Upon this subject but little need be said. The law and the foots are in precisely the same enndition that they were at the argument and when the first petition for a rehearing was presented. The views of the court appear sufficiently in the decisions then rendered, and it is not necessary to reiterate them.
The causes relied upon by the defendant had been decided at circuit adversely to the respective patents before the argument of this cause. These decisions were all published, and were accessible to the…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Garretson v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Mowry v. WhitneySupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Seymour v. McCormickSupreme Court of the United States · 1854
- The Suffolk Company v. HaydenSupreme Court of the United States · 1866
- Dobson v. DornanSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Salvage Process Corp. v. Acme Tank Cleaning Process Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1939
- Gold Seal Importers, Inc. v. Morris White Fashions, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1945
- Kansas City Hay Press Co. v. DevolU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri · 1904
- Gotham Silk Hosiery Co. v. Artcraft Silk Hosiery Mills, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1942