Legal Opinion
Lovell Mfg. Co. v. Automatic Wringer Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Michigan
Decided September 23, 1903No. 1,491PublishedCited by 2 opinions
In Equity. On exceptions to answer.
1Opinion of the Court
WANTY, District Judge.
The question presented is on exceptions ■taken by the complainant to the failure of the defendant to answer certain interrogatories propounded in the bill. The bill is filed for the purpose of recovering royalties under a license agreement in which the defendant acknowledges the validity of the patent under which the articles are made. Accompanying the bill is an .exhibit, which it is averred the defendant manufactures, and which it is averred comes within the license agreement. The interrogatories are as follows:
“(1) Whether between the 15th day of October, 1902, and…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- National Hollow Brake Beam Co. v. Interchangeable Brake Beam Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri · 1897
- Keller v. StraussU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1898
- Haarmann v. LuedersU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1901
3Cited by2 opinions
- Piggly Wiggly Corporation v. SaundersDistrict Court, W.D. Tennessee · 1924
- F. F. Slocomb & Co. v. A. C. Layman Mach. Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1912