Legal Opinion
Ball v. Coker
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of South Carolina
Decided February 24, 1909PublishedCited by 5 opinions
In, Equity.
1Opinion of the Court
BRA WEE Y, District Judge.
The plaintiff above named filed his amended bill in this court March 30, 1908, alleging, among other things, that he had been appointed by the court of common pleas for the county of Charleston, S. C., receiver of letters patent No. 807,990, issued to W. T. Ball, George S. Regare, Thomas R. Harney, Hampton *305K. Lea, and Charles Miner, which patent was for a process called the “double-hulling process,” for hulling cotton seed of various sizes without disintegrating the meats, and charged that the defendants had for more than two years last past employed, practiced, and…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Gayler v. WilderSupreme Court of the United States · 1851
- Ager v. MurraySupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Stevens v. GladdingSupreme Court of the United States · 1855
- Stephens v. CadySupreme Court of the United States · 1853
- Gordon v. AnthonyU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1879
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Crown Die & Tool Co. v. Nye Tool & MacHine WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Morrow Ex Rel. General Unsecured Creditors' Liquidating Trust of at Home Corp. v. Microsoft Corp.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2007
- Schiebel Toy & Novelty Co. v. ClarkCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1914
- Finnegan v. FinneganCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
- Morrow Ex Rel. General Unsecured Creditors' Liquidating Trust of at Home Corp. v. Microsoft Corp.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2007