Kirchberger v. American Acetylene Burner Co.
132 F. 911, 66 C.C.A. 121, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4357
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided September 7, 1904·No. No. 174·Published·Cited by 2 cases
Opinion
Petition for rehearing denied, but, to avoid any further misunderstanding as to the disposition of the fourth claim, which was not passed upon by this court, the mandate will be amended so as to affirm the decree as to the first three claims, and dismiss the appeal as to the fourth claim; thus leaving the question of its construction and validity open for future consideration.
The court below is instructed to enter a decree in conformity with this opinion, and with three-quarters costs to complainants.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Kirchberger v. American Acetylene Burner Co., 132 F. 911, 66 C.C.A. 121, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4357 (2d Cir. 1904).
132 F. 911 (Kirchberger v. American Acetylene Burner Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
De Long Hook & Eye Co. v. Francis Hook & Eye & Fastener Co.
150 F. 597 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western New York, 1906)
Kirchberger v. American Acetylene Burner Co.
142 F. 169 (Second Circuit, 1905)