Frank F. Slocomb & Co. v. Turner

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania

Frank F. Slocomb & Co. v. Turner

158 F. 987, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4984

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 29, 1908

DocketNo. 28

StatusPublished

This text of 158 F. 987 (Frank F. Slocomb & Co. v. Turner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frank F. Slocomb & Co. v. Turner, 158 F. 987, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4984 (circtedpa 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.

I have given attentive consideration to this case with its few and narrow points of difference between the parties, and am of. opinion that the three claims insisted upon, namely, claim 3 of the Anderson patent, No. 457,331, claim 1 of the Pierce & Poinsett patent, No. 623,423, and claim 1 of the Holmes patent, No. 538,914, all relating to staking machines in the art of finishing leather, have been infringed by the defendants’ machine, which is manufactured under the Scott patent, No. 819,605. Indeed, the defense brought forward lacks strength so visibly that I have been inclined to believe that not much reliance is placed upon it by the defendants themselves. For the present, therefore, I- shall not take what seems now to be the superfluous trouble to say anything further about the case, except to direct the usual decree to be entered in favor of the complainant, with costs. But if an appeal be taken, and the defendants should desire a statement of my views in more detail, I shall endeavor to comply with their wishes.

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

J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.

I have given attentive consideration to this case with its few and narrow points of difference between the parties, and am of. opinion that the three claims insisted upon, namely, claim 3 of the Anderson patent, No. 457,331, claim 1 of the Pierce & Poinsett patent, No. 623,423, and claim 1 of the Holmes patent, No. 538,914, all relating to staking machines in the art of finishing leather, have been infringed by the defendants’ machine, which is manufactured under the Scott patent, No. 819,605. Indeed, the defense brought forward lacks strength so visibly that I have been inclined to believe that not much reliance is placed upon it by the defendants themselves. For the present, therefore, I- shall not take what seems now to be the superfluous trouble to say anything further about the case, except to direct the usual decree to be entered in favor of the complainant, with costs. But if an appeal be taken, and the defendants should desire a statement of my views in more detail, I shall endeavor to comply with their wishes.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 F. 987, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4984, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-f-slocomb-co-v-turner-circtedpa-1908.