Johnson v. McCurdy

Seventh Circuit

Johnson v. McCurdy

108 F. 671, 47 C.C.A. 577, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 3806

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedApril 9, 1901

DocketNo. 744

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 108 F. 671 (Johnson v. McCurdy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Johnson v. McCurdy, 108 F. 671, 47 C.C.A. 577, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 3806 (7th Cir. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

After the foregoing statement of the case, GROSSCUP, Circuit Judge, delivered the opinion of the court, as follows:

Following Justi v. Clark, just decided, the decree of the Circuit Court must be affirmed. The Hurlbut patent is not, in our opinion, and for reasons there stated, an infringement of the Bardsley patent. Nor can the Bardsley patent be construed to rightfully exclude others from using a jet of water, tangentially applied to the inner surface of a bowl, to revolve the bowl. This was a law of nature, well known before the Bardsley device.

The decree of the Circuit Court is accordingly affirmed.

WOODS, Circuit Judge.

For reasons indicated in the case of justi v. Clark, I cannot concur in this opinion, though not clear that the conclusion is wrong. .. •

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