American Ordnance Co. v. Driggs-Seabury Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut

American Ordnance Co. v. Driggs-Seabury Co.

87 F. 947, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 2763

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut

DecidedJune 20, 1898

DocketNo. 962

StatusPublished

This text of 87 F. 947 (American Ordnance Co. v. Driggs-Seabury Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Ordnance Co. v. Driggs-Seabury Co., 87 F. 947, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 2763 (circtdct 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

TOWNSEND, District Judge.

On this motion for a preliminary injunction, complainant claims public acquiescence in the validity of its patent, infringement, and that defendant is estopped to deny validity by reason of tbe previous relations of the parlies in interest. [ am not satisfied that defendant’s proposed construction will not infringe certain claims of the patent in suit. But, as it is admitted that defendant is financially responsible, tbe motion will be denied on the ground that defendant is under contract to furnish the guns in question to the government of the United (States within six weeks from the present time, for use in time of war for coast defense, and under the pressure of immediate and impending danger. In these circumstances, the defendant should not be restrained from delivering such necessary war material to the government.

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

TOWNSEND, District Judge.

On this motion for a preliminary injunction, complainant claims public acquiescence in the validity of its patent, infringement, and that defendant is estopped to deny validity by reason of tbe previous relations of the parlies in interest. [ am not satisfied that defendant’s proposed construction will not infringe certain claims of the patent in suit. But, as it is admitted that defendant is financially responsible, tbe motion will be denied on the ground that defendant is under contract to furnish the guns in question to the government of the United (States within six weeks from the present time, for use in time of war for coast defense, and under the pressure of immediate and impending danger. In these circumstances, the defendant should not be restrained from delivering such necessary war material to the government.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 F. 947, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 2763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-ordnance-co-v-driggs-seabury-co-circtdct-1898.