Johnson v. Columbia Phonograph Co.
106 F. 319, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4635
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania·Decided January 28, 1901·No. Nos. 12, 13·Published·Cited by 2 cases
Opinion
The practice adopted in Russell v. Repeating Arms Co. (C. C.) 97 Fed. 634, and followed In two instances-in the Southern district of 3srew York, is certainly exceptional. The propriety of its enforcement in those cases need not be questioned,' but I have not been convinced that it should be insisted upon in those now before this court. Therefore the defendants’ motions to require the complainant to specify the claims relied on are denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Johnson v. Columbia Phonograph Co., 106 F. 319, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4635 (circtedpa 1901).
106 F. 319 (Johnson v. Columbia Phonograph Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Morton Trust Co. v. American Car & Foundry Co.
129 F. 916 (Third Circuit, 1904)
Morton Trust Co. v. American Car & Foundry Co.
121 F. 132 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey, 1903)