Hanks Dental Ass'n v. International Tooth Crown Co.

Second Circuit

Hanks Dental Ass'n v. International Tooth Crown Co.

130 F. 1022, 63 C.C.A. 684, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4253

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJune 1, 1904

DocketNo. 83

StatusPublished

This text of 130 F. 1022 (Hanks Dental Ass'n v. International Tooth Crown Co.) 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

Hanks Dental Ass'n v. International Tooth Crown Co., 130 F. 1022, 63 C.C.A. 684, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4253 (2d Cir. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On the 16th of May, 1904, the Supreme Court of the United States rendered a decision in which the following question, certified by us, was answered in the negative: “Was the order of the Circuit Court directing the president of the Hanks Dental Association, the defendant in that court, to appear before a master or commissioner appointed pursuant to the provisions of section 870 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of New York valid and authorized under the act of March 9, 1892?” As the only evidence tending to establish infringement was found in the deposition thus taken without authority of law, it follows that the judgment must be reversed, with costs, and a new trial directed.

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

PER CURIAM.

On the 16th of May, 1904, the Supreme Court of the United States rendered a decision in which the following question, certified by us, was answered in the negative: “Was the order of the Circuit Court directing the president of the Hanks Dental Association, the defendant in that court, to appear before a master or commissioner appointed pursuant to the provisions of section 870 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of New York valid and authorized under the act of March 9, 1892?” As the only evidence tending to establish infringement was found in the deposition thus taken without authority of law, it follows that the judgment must be reversed, with costs, and a new trial directed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 F. 1022, 63 C.C.A. 684, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanks-dental-assn-v-international-tooth-crown-co-ca2-1904.