Dupre v. Denison

Second Circuit

Dupre v. Denison

279 F. 1017, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 1666

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMarch 27, 1922

DocketNo. 236

StatusPublished

This text of 279 F. 1017 (Dupre v. Denison) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dupre v. Denison, 279 F. 1017, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 1666 (2d Cir. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

No question of law is presented by this appeal. The sole inquiry is whether, as alleged in the answer, Mr. Denison did or did not “purchase the patent mentioned in the complaint for and in consideration of tho sum of $500.” Having carefully read the evidence which the trial judge hoard (together with the depositions offered) we agree with him, and find it true that Mr. Denison did purchase the patent referred to for $500, paid for it at once, and that the plaintiff was at the time well satisfied therewith. It is quite true that the purchase was not conducted with much formality, and what was done exposed Mr. Denison to just such an attack as this, which attack, however, has been devised, not by tho plaintiff herein, but by the witness F'esler for purposes of Ms own. As we find no merit in that attack, the decree appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

No question of law is presented by this appeal. The sole inquiry is whether, as alleged in the answer, Mr. Denison did or did not “purchase the patent mentioned in the complaint for and in consideration of tho sum of $500.” Having carefully read the evidence which the trial judge hoard (together with the depositions offered) we agree with him, and find it true that Mr. Denison did purchase the patent referred to for $500, paid for it at once, and that the plaintiff was at the time well satisfied therewith. It is quite true that the purchase was not conducted with much formality, and what was done exposed Mr. Denison to just such an attack as this, which attack, however, has been devised, not by tho plaintiff herein, but by the witness F'esler for purposes of Ms own. As we find no merit in that attack, the decree appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 F. 1017, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 1666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dupre-v-denison-ca2-1922.