Ecaubert v. Appleton

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Ecaubert v. Appleton

62 F. 748, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 2917

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedApril 19, 1894

StatusPublished

This text of 62 F. 748 (Ecaubert v. Appleton) 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.

Bluebook

Ecaubert v. Appleton, 62 F. 748, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 2917 (circtsdny 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

COXE, District Judge.

The foregoing considerations dispose of this cause also, which is an ordinary action of infringement. The bill is dismissed.

Note: As these causes have been decided upon the broad ground that <r Ecaubert conceived of the invention before December, 1887, he had not succeeded in reducing it to practice until after Hofmann had made an operative machine, it seems unnecessary to pass, seriatim, upon the questions raised by the motions to strike out. In view of the fact that the actions were. x>rae-tically, tried together, .all the testimony complained of seems to have a bearing upon some of the issues presented. I am of the opinion that the testimony should not be stricken out, and this ruling may be put in any form which counsel for Ecaubert may suggest to enable him to present the questions on appeal.

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

COXE, District Judge.

The foregoing considerations dispose of this cause also, which is an ordinary action of infringement. The bill is dismissed.

Note: As these causes have been decided upon the broad ground that <r Ecaubert conceived of the invention before December, 1887, he had not succeeded in reducing it to practice until after Hofmann had made an operative machine, it seems unnecessary to pass, seriatim, upon the questions raised by the motions to strike out. In view of the fact that the actions were. x>rae-tically, tried together, .all the testimony complained of seems to have a bearing upon some of the issues presented. I am of the opinion that the testimony should not be stricken out, and this ruling may be put in any form which counsel for Ecaubert may suggest to enable him to present the questions on appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 F. 748, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 2917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ecaubert-v-appleton-circtsdny-1894.