Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. H. W. Johns Mfg. Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
In Equity. On motion to compel witness to answer. The certificate of the examiner, setting out the facts, is as follows: I, Erinina E. Walker, notary public, aeiing as special examiner by consent, do hereby certify: That on the 26th day of November, 3900. I was attended by the witness Edwin W. Hammer, then under cross-examination, and by Theodore T. Dorman, as counsel for respondents, and Thomas J. Johnston, counsel for complainant, and that in the course of the said…
Read the full summary
In Equity. On motion to compel witness to answer. The certificate of the examiner, setting out the facts, is as follows: I, Erinina E. Walker, notary public, aeiing as special examiner by consent, do hereby certify: That on the 26th day of November, 3900. I was attended by the witness Edwin W. Hammer, then under cross-examination, and by Theodore T. Dorman, as counsel for respondents, and Thomas J. Johnston, counsel for complainant, and that in the course of the said examination the proceedings herein appended took place. The witness was asked xQ. 300, as follows: “I show you a patent, and I…
1Opinion of the Court
LAGOMBE, Circuit Judge.
The witness is complainant’s expert, who is being cross-examined on the prima facie; and the question relates to one of many patents set up in the answer, either as anticipations, or as showing a state of the art which calls for a narrow construction of the patents sued upon, or possibly for a decision adverse to complainant on the question of invention. Objection is taken that this is not proper cross-examination, since the prior patent was not referred to on the direct. Where the direct examination of an expert on prima facie is confined to its proper limits, viz. a…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Æolian Co. v. Standard Music Roll Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey · 1910
- Æolian Co. v. Simpson-Crawford Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1907
- Hussong Dyeing Mach. Co. v. Philadelphia Drying Machinery Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1909