Legal Opinion
Potter v. Hook Scraper Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided August 31, 1934PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CAFPEY, District Judge.
In order for this court, over objection, to retain the suit, it is certain that at least one defendant either (1) must be an inhabitant of this district, or (2) must have committed an act of infringement, as well as have a regular and established place of business, in this district. Judicial Code, § 48 (28 USCA § 109). I am uncertain whether the plaintiff rests its position, that there is venue in this district, on the first or on the second ground.
Paragraph 9 of the bill alleges that all the defendants have committed acts of infringement in the Southern District of New…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Shaw v. Quincy Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co. v. GonzalesSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Fairbanks Steam Shovel Company v. Wills, Trustee in Bankruptcy of Federal Contracting CompanySupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Cheatham Electric Switching Device Co. v. Transit Development Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York · 1911
- Zell v. Erie Bronze Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1921
3Cited by3 opinions
- Schick Dry Shaver, Inc. v. Motoshaver, Inc.District Court, S.D. California · 1937
- Sperry Products, Inc. v. Association of American RailroadsDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1942
- Lee v. Dartmouth-HitchcockDistrict Court, D. New Hampshire · 1997