Heap v. Tremont & Suffolk Mills

First Circuit

Heap v. Tremont & Suffolk Mills

84 F. 1017, 28 C.C.A. 682, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 1994

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedJanuary 28, 1898

DocketNo. 205

StatusPublished

This text of 84 F. 1017 (Heap v. Tremont & Suffolk Mills) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Heap v. Tremont & Suffolk Mills, 84 F. 1017, 28 C.C.A. 682, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 1994 (1st Cir. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was fully heard by the court, and on August 21,1897, a judgment was entered as follows: “The decree of the circuit court is reversed, with costs, and the case remanded to that court, with directions to enter a decree for an accounting, hut to deny an injunction, on the ground that the patent expired after the appeal was taken.” Subsequently, the appellant filed a petition for a rehearing under rule 29 (21 C. C. A. cxxv., 78 Eed. exxv.), on consideration of which the court entered the following order: “Ordered that the petition for rehearing filed by the complainant be so far allowed that the cause be reargued orally as to the effect, in all respects, of the French patent, dated February 16, 1881, No. 141,170, including its effect on the various claims of the patent in suit, and on infringing machines antedating the alleged expiration of said French patent.” This order, of course, vacated the judgment; but, having fully heard the parties in accordance therewith, we are all of the opinion that the judgment -was correct. Ordered, the judgment of August 21, 1897, is renewed, and a mandate in accordance therewith will issue forthwith.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was fully heard by the court, and on August 21,1897, a judgment was entered as follows: “The decree of the circuit court is reversed, with costs, and the case remanded to that court, with directions to enter a decree for an accounting, hut to deny an injunction, on the ground that the patent expired after the appeal was taken.” Subsequently, the appellant filed a petition for a rehearing under rule 29 (21 C. C. A. cxxv., 78 Eed. exxv.), on consideration of which the court entered the following order: “Ordered that the petition for rehearing filed by the complainant be so far allowed that the cause be reargued orally as to the effect, in all respects, of the French patent, dated February 16, 1881, No. 141,170, including its effect on the various claims of the patent in suit, and on infringing machines antedating the alleged expiration of said French patent.” This order, of course, vacated the judgment; but, having fully heard the parties in accordance therewith, we are all of the opinion that the judgment -was correct. Ordered, the judgment of August 21, 1897, is renewed, and a mandate in accordance therewith will issue forthwith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 F. 1017, 28 C.C.A. 682, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 1994, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heap-v-tremont-suffolk-mills-ca1-1898.