Hayes v. Bickelhoupt

11 F. Cas. 908, 19 O.G. 177
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
DecidedNovember 10, 1880
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 11 F. Cas. 908 (Hayes v. Bickelhoupt) 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
Hayes v. Bickelhoupt, 11 F. Cas. 908, 19 O.G. 177 (circtsdny 1880).

Opinion

BLATCHFORD, Circuit Judge.

The bill in this case is exactly like the bill in Hayes v. Dayton [8 Fed. 702], just decided, except that it leaves out reissues Nos. 8,676 and 8,689 and their several originals and concerns only thirty-three claims in four several patents. The bill is demurred to. The demurrer states the cause of demurrer to be that the bill "is multifarious, and separate and [909]*909distinct causes of action are united therein which ought not to be joined or united, to wit: that said bill of complaint sets forth many separate and distinct letters patent, for infringement of which suit is brought, but shows no reason for unitifig these separate and distinct causes of action in one suit against this defendant.” The demurrer appears to be sufficient in form to raise the question considered and decided in Hayes v. Dayton, and for the reasons assigned in the decision in that case, the demurrer is allowed, with costs.

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

Related

In re Tucker
46 F.2d 214 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11 F. Cas. 908, 19 O.G. 177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayes-v-bickelhoupt-circtsdny-1880.