Dickerson v. Greene

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island

Dickerson v. Greene

53 F. 247, 1892 U.S. App. LEXIS 2019

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island·Decided November 17, 1892·No. No. 2,362·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

CARPENTER, District Judge.

The respondents, in support of their demurrer, argue that the bill should set out the nature of the patented invention, or at least should make the specification of the letters patent a part of the bill in express words. But it seems to be settled, at least in the practice of the federal courts, that proferí of an instrument, such as this bill makes, is sufficient to make such instrument a part of the bill. Bogart v. Hinds, 25 Fed. Rep, 484; American Bell Tel. Co. v. Southern Tel. Co., 34 Fed. Rep. 803. This demurrer must therefore be overruled, and the respondents or: dered to answer over.

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

CARPENTER, District Judge.

The respondents, in support of their demurrer, argue that the bill should set out the nature of the patented invention, or at least should make the specification of the letters patent a part of the bill in express words. But it seems to be settled, at least in the practice of the federal courts, that proferí of an instrument, such as this bill makes, is sufficient to make such instrument a part of the bill. Bogart v. Hinds, 25 Fed. Rep, 484; American Bell Tel. Co. v. Southern Tel. Co., 34 Fed. Rep. 803. This demurrer must therefore be overruled, and the respondents or: dered to answer over.

Dickerson v. Greene, 53 F. 247, 1892 U.S. App. LEXIS 2019 (circtdri 1892).

Pincite

53 F. 247 (Dickerson v. Greene) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related