Legal Opinion

Milligan v. Lalance & Grosjean Manuf'g Co.

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

Decided August 29, 1884PublishedCited by 5 opinions

At Law.

1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, J.

The plaintiff was in the employ of the defendant, and made what they supposed to be an invention of a new and patentable improvement in sheet-metal vessels for culinary purposes, consisting of a shoulder around the inside of the upper edge to support the lid. He assigned it to the defendant to procure a patent upon it and practice it. The defendant applied for a patent; the application was rejected for want of novelty; tlio solicitor amended it to include an inclosed wire at the extreme edge, and the patent-No. 189,250, dated April 3, 1877, was granted for such a vessel, having such shoulder,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Eagleton Manufacturing Co. v. West, Bradley & Carey Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1884
  2. Sharp v. TifftU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1880

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Stentor Electric Mfg. Co. v. Klaxon Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1940
  2. Dwight & Lloyd Sintering Co. v. American Ore Reclamation Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1941
  3. Free-Flow Muffler Company v. KliewerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1955
  4. McKenna Process Co. v. Blatchford Corp.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1940
  5. Free-Flow Muffler Company v. KliewerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1955

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

Powered by the Exa API