Arnold v. Bishop
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Statement of the Case. Subsequent to the preceding decision of the honoi'able judge he tx'ansmitted a second opinion to the office in the following words :
1Opinion of the CourtCranch, J.
After I had sent my opinion in this case to the Commissioner of Patents, on the 30th day of October last, I was satisfied that I had misapprehended the attoxmey of Mr. Arnold in supposing that in case I should sustain his objections to the testimony and evidence on the part of the appellees he would not desire to be further heard. I therefore detex'mined to hear his further ai'gument on the 20th instant at my chambers, of which I gave notice to the attoi'neyS of the parties, and they attended, viz., Doctor Jones on the part of the appellant and Mr. Morfit on the part of the appellees. Mr.…
2Cited by3 opinions
- In Re TuckerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1932
- In re SebaldCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1944
- First Security Trust Co. v. MitchellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1936