Legal Opinion

Cornelly v. Markwald

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Decided July 1, 1885PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWallace, J.

The clerk properly refused to tax the item of $150 in plaintiff’s hill of costs for the expense of obtaining a model of the defendant’s infringing machine. Irrespective of any question as to the propriety or necessity of procuring such a model, the expense incurred cannot be deemed a taxable disbursement in favor of the prevailing party. The reasons why such an item should not be allowed, are fully stated in the opinion of the court in Woodruff v. Barney, 1 Bond, 528, and in Hussey v. Bradley, 5 Blatchf. 210. It is obvious that it would subject litigants in patent cases to onerous and…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Hussey v. BradleyU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York · 1864
  2. Woodruff v. BarneyU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio · 1862

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Specialty Equipment & MacHinery Corp. v. Zell Motor Car Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1952
  2. Swan Carburetor Co. v. Chrysler CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1945
  3. Appliance Inv. Co. v. Western Electric Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1932
  4. Andresen v. Clear Ridge Aviation, Inc.District Court, D. Nebraska · 1949
  5. Victor Talking Mach. Co. v. Starr Piano Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1922

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API