Gilchrist Co. v. Erie Specialty Co.
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
In Equity. Suit by the Gilchrist Company against the Erie Specialty Company. On motion by defendant to limit the issue and testimony.
1Opinion of the Court
ORR, District Judge.
This matter comes before the court upon a motion ex parte defendant to limit the testimony in the case, for the reason that the plaintiff is estopped from raising the question of prior*742ity of invention between the Olmstead patent, No. 819,373, and the Neilson patent, No. 833,620, in this case, for the reasons set forth in clause 14 of the defendant’s amended answer, and for the further reason that under the rule of comity of decision the existing decision of Judge Ray is binding upon both parties.
The suit in which the above motion is made is the ordinary patent suit in…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Southern Pacific Railroad v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Penfield v. C. & A. Potts & Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1903
- Walker v. GilesDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 1913
3Cited by1 opinion
- Gilchrist Co. v. Erie Specialty Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1916