Legal Opinion

Consolidated Rubber Tire Co. v. Diamond Rubber Co. of New York

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided June 3, 1908No. 261PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. A final decree of the Circuit Court, entered March 2, 1908, sustained the two claims of letters patent No. 554,675 to Arthur W. Grant for improvements in rubber tired wheels and ordering an injunction and an accounting.

Read the full summary

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. A final decree of the Circuit Court, entered March 2, 1908, sustained the two claims of letters patent No. 554,675 to Arthur W. Grant for improvements in rubber tired wheels and ordering an injunction and an accounting. The patent was sustained by this court in an action by complainant against the Firestone Tire & Rubber Company; the decision being filed January 30, 1907. 151 Fed. 237. The opinion of this court upon appeal from the order granting a preliminary injunction in the present action is reported…

1Opinion of the Court

COXE, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is in the nature of a reargument of the questions decided in the Firestone Case. It is not here upon newly discovered evidence, for the additional testimony was as available in that case as in this. There is more testimony it is true but it is cumulative merely. • The counsel are the same, the issues are the same. The judge of the Circuit Court correctly states the situation as follows:

“The question in this case was presented and tried out before Judge Platt and before the Circuit Court of Appeals; evidence was taken and experts examined. One side gave evidence…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Kessler v. EldredSupreme Court of the United States · 1907

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Lowell v. TriplettCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1935
  2. Hurd v. SeimCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1911
  3. Hurd v. SeimU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York · 1911
  4. Karl Kiefer Mach. Co. v. Unionwerke, A. G.District Court, S.D. New York · 1914

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

Powered by the Exa API