Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. Frolloehr
This text of 121 F. 561 (Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. Frolloehr) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The impression produced by repeated study of the affidavits is that the change made by defendants in [562]*562their original infringing machines was colorable; being so arranged that the brushes could readily be adjusted in practice so as to brush the fur down, .as well as across. Moreover, the court is strongly inclined to believe that they have been so adjusted in practice. Nevertheless, strong impressions are not sufficient warrant for holding a person in contempt, when such holding would involve his imprisonment. Against the sworn denials of the defendants, uncontradicted by any testimony from the room in which the machines have been actually used, the circumstantial evidence secured upon the inspection of November 21st is not sufficient to support a finding that defendants have disobeyed the order of the court.
Motion denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
121 F. 561, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 5373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cimiotti-unhairing-co-v-frolloehr-circtsdny-1903.