Legal Opinion
Timolat v. Philadelphia Pneumatic Tool Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
Decided May 31, 1904PublishedCited by 2 opinions
In Equity.
1Opinion of the Court
HAZEL, District Judge.
The supersedeas heretofore allowed upon the ex parte application of the defendant must be vacated. The *904complainants having succeeded, upon all the proofs, in establishing the merits of their bill, an interlocutory judgment to preserve to them the rights of their patented invention during the short remainder of its existence is bound to issue as of course. Section 7 of the Circuit Court of Appeals act of 1891 (Act March 3, 1891, c. 517, 36 Stat. 838 [U.- S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 550]) is declarative of the right to an appeal from an interlocutory decree granting or…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hamblin v. Western Land Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Andreasen v. Two Hundred & Ninety-Five Thousand Feet of LumberDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1894
- Gamewell Fire-alarm Tel. Co. v. Municipal Signal Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1894
- Lockwood v. WickesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1895
- Excelsior Wooden-Pipe Co. v. AllenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1900
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. v. Clymer Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1931
- Shelby Steel Tube Co. v. Delaware Seamless Tube Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1908