Hammerschlag v. Garrett

U.S. Circuit Court

Hammerschlag v. Garrett

9 F. 43, 1881 U.S. App. LEXIS 2450

CourtUnited States Circuit Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1881

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 9 F. 43 (Hammerschlag v. Garrett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hammerschlag v. Garrett, 9 F. 43, 1881 U.S. App. LEXIS 2450 (uscirct 1881).

Pincite

Opinion

Butler, D. J.

The circuit court for the southern district of New York decided the plaintiff’s patent to he valid in Hammerschlag v. Scamoni, and construed its several claims. The evidence respecting the state of the art, and prior invention, now relied upon by the [44]*44defendant, was before the court in that case. The conclusion then reached should, therefore, be followed, unless indeed plain mistake be shown. A proper regard for uniformity of decision requires this. If the defendant thinks he is injured, a review can be had in the supreme court, and the subject thus be put at rest. The confusion and mischief likely to result from conflicting decisions should be avoided. While there may be difficulty in distinguishing the plaintiff’s process and machinery from that- described in the British letters pátent No. 55, granted to John Stenhouse, we do not feel ourselves justified in saying they cannot be distinguished, as they were in the case cited, and thus disregard the decision there made. As respects the question of infringement, the defendant’s process and machinery are so similar in all respects, to that of the defendant in Hammerschlag v. Scamoni, that what is there said on this subject, applies with equal force here.

A decree must therefore be entered for the plaintiff.

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

Butler, D. J.

The circuit court for the southern district of New York decided the plaintiff’s patent to he valid in Hammerschlag v. Scamoni, and construed its several claims. The evidence respecting the state of the art, and prior invention, now relied upon by the [44]*44defendant, was before the court in that case. The conclusion then reached should, therefore, be followed, unless indeed plain mistake be shown. A proper regard for uniformity of decision requires this. If the defendant thinks he is injured, a review can be had in the supreme court, and the subject thus be put at rest. The confusion and mischief likely to result from conflicting decisions should be avoided. While there may be difficulty in distinguishing the plaintiff’s process and machinery from that- described in the British letters pátent No. 55, granted to John Stenhouse, we do not feel ourselves justified in saying they cannot be distinguished, as they were in the case cited, and thus disregard the decision there made. As respects the question of infringement, the defendant’s process and machinery are so similar in all respects, to that of the defendant in Hammerschlag v. Scamoni, that what is there said on this subject, applies with equal force here.

A decree must therefore be entered for the plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 F. 43, 1881 U.S. App. LEXIS 2450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hammerschlag-v-garrett-uscirct-1881.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack