Legal Opinion · Dissent
Goodrum v. Clement
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Decided January 3, 1922No. Nos. 1441-1444PublishedCited by 1 opinion
Appeal from a Decision of the Commissioner of Patents. Dissenting opinion.
1DissentSmyth, Chief Justice
I dissent from the decision in all the cases, except No. 1444. As I view it, the law of attorney and client has no application whatever. Clement undoubtedly was Goodrum’s attorney at the time of the Atlantic City interview, but that is immaterial. If it was established that Goodrum had conveyed something to him, and now questioned the conveyance on the ground that it was unfair, the burden would be undoubtedly on Clement to establish the justice of the transaction. Kisling v. Shaw, 33 Cal. 425, 91 Am. Dec. 644; Hammer v. Gordon, 50 App. D. C. 34, 267 Fed. 336. But that is not the case.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Deering v. Winona Harvester WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Kisling v. ShawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- Reid v. KitselmanCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1920
- Blaine v. WhiteDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1920
- Hammer v. GordonDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1920
3Cited by1 opinion
- Reusch v. FischerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1931