Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co. v. Kennedy

Third Circuit

Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co. v. Kennedy

25 F.2d 1017, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 3117

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedApril 30, 1928

DocketNo. 3740

StatusPublished

This text of 25 F.2d 1017 (Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co. v. Kennedy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co. v. Kennedy, 25 F.2d 1017, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 3117 (3d Cir. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

In the court below Kennedy, the owner of patent No. 1,436,338, granted November 21, 1922, to Charles L. Carman for a crusher, charged the Allis-Chalmers Company with infringement thereof in a gyratory stone crusher of its make. In a comprehensive opinion that court held the patent valid and infringed. On appeal from a decree so holding we find ourselves in entire accord with that opinion, only adding that we find Carman’s device increased output as much as four to one, and avoided the wear, tear, and rapid depreciation incident to the use of prior crushers.

In view of the full and satisfactory discussion the questions in the ease have already had at the hands of the court below, we limit ourselves to now stating the decree is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

In the court below Kennedy, the owner of patent No. 1,436,338, granted November 21, 1922, to Charles L. Carman for a crusher, charged the Allis-Chalmers Company with infringement thereof in a gyratory stone crusher of its make. In a comprehensive opinion that court held the patent valid and infringed. On appeal from a decree so holding we find ourselves in entire accord with that opinion, only adding that we find Carman’s device increased output as much as four to one, and avoided the wear, tear, and rapid depreciation incident to the use of prior crushers.

In view of the full and satisfactory discussion the questions in the ease have already had at the hands of the court below, we limit ourselves to now stating the decree is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 F.2d 1017, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 3117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allis-chalmers-manufacturing-co-v-kennedy-ca3-1928.