Dickerson v. Greene
This text of 53 F. 247 (Dickerson v. Greene) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
53 F. 247, 1892 U.S. App. LEXIS 2019, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dickerson-v-greene-circtdri-1892.