Kerosene Lamp Co. v. Littell

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey

Kerosene Lamp Co. v. Littell

14 F. Cas. 375, 2 N.J. Law J. 150, 1879 U.S. App. LEXIS 2007

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey

DecidedMarch 29, 1879

StatusPublished

This text of 14 F. Cas. 375 (Kerosene Lamp Co. v. Littell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kerosene Lamp Co. v. Littell, 14 F. Cas. 375, 2 N.J. Law J. 150, 1879 U.S. App. LEXIS 2007 (circtdnj 1879).

Pincite

Opinion

NIXON, District Judge.

There has been ¿ decree for the complainant in this cause on final hearing, .and this is an application for a rehearing, which the court, as a rule, is not disposed to favor. There are doubtless cases where such applications are proper, and where newly discovered facts render a rehearing the only method of averting injustice and securing the rights of litigants. But it is to the interest of the republic that there should be an end to strife, and the court is not disposed to encourage the practice sometimes resorted to by the losing party, of employing new counsel, and renewing the controversy, after he has submitted his case upon his proofs and elaborate argument, and had a decision rendered against him.

The opinion proceeds with an examination of the affidavits of the patentee, and the other proofs of newly discovered evidence, and concludes that it does not clearly appear that the lamps or heaters in evidence were in existence prior to the invention of Fish (the patentee), and that, if they were, they were not anticipations of the complainant’s patent, as heretofore construed by the court The motion for a rehearing was denied.

[See Case No. 7,724.]

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

NIXON, District Judge.

There has been ¿ decree for the complainant in this cause on final hearing, .and this is an application for a rehearing, which the court, as a rule, is not disposed to favor. There are doubtless cases where such applications are proper, and where newly discovered facts render a rehearing the only method of averting injustice and securing the rights of litigants. But it is to the interest of the republic that there should be an end to strife, and the court is not disposed to encourage the practice sometimes resorted to by the losing party, of employing new counsel, and renewing the controversy, after he has submitted his case upon his proofs and elaborate argument, and had a decision rendered against him.

The opinion proceeds with an examination of the affidavits of the patentee, and the other proofs of newly discovered evidence, and concludes that it does not clearly appear that the lamps or heaters in evidence were in existence prior to the invention of Fish (the patentee), and that, if they were, they were not anticipations of the complainant’s patent, as heretofore construed by the court The motion for a rehearing was denied.

[See Case No. 7,724.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 F. Cas. 375, 2 N.J. Law J. 150, 1879 U.S. App. LEXIS 2007, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kerosene-lamp-co-v-littell-circtdnj-1879.