Legal Opinion
National Harrow Co. v. Hench
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided October 29, 1897No. 30PublishedCited by 19 opinions
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
1Opinion of the Court
BUTLER, District Judge.
The essential facts are well stated by the circuit court, as follows:
“The National Harrow Company, a corporation of the state of New York,— to whose contract rights and general purposes the plaintiff, a subsequently created New Jersey corporation, has succeeded, — originated in a written agreement between a number of leading and distinct manufacturers, under various United States letters patent, of float spring-tooth harrows, whereby it was agreed that they would organize a corporation under the laws of New York and would assign to the corporation all United States…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Distilling & Cattle Feeding Co. v. People ex rel. MoloneyIllinois Supreme Court · 1895
- Nester v. Continental Brewing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
- Pittsburg Carbon Co. v. McMillinNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- National Harrow Co. v. HenchU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1896
- National Harrow Co. v. QuickU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana · 1895
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- United States v. Aluminum Co. of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1945
- United States v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1898
- Standard Oil Co. (Indiana) v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- United States v. Line Material Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1948
- United States v. Hartford-Empire Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1942
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.