Legal Opinion
In re Hammer
District Court, E.D. New York
Decided June 3, 1924PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GARVIN, District Judge.
This is a motion to dismiss the bill of complaint herein for want of jurisdiction. The action or proceeding is at least unusual. Peter Hammer is named as plaintiff. No defendant or respondent is named. It is stated that the action was brought to compel the issuance of a patent under section 4915, United States Revised Statutes (Comp. St. § 9460), which reads as follows:
“Sec. 4915. Whenever a patent on application is refused, either by the Commissioner of Patents or by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia upon appeal from the Commissioner, the applicant may have…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Morgan v. DanielsSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Central Ry. Signal Co. v. JacksonDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1918
- Dover v. GreenwoodDistrict Court, D. Rhode Island · 1910
- Hammer v. RobertsonDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1923
- Graham v. TeterUnited States Circuit Court · 1885
3Cited by2 opinions
- Century Distilling Co. v. Continental Distilling Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1939
- Canon v. RobertsonDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1929