Lalance & Grosjean Manuf'g Co. v. Mosheim

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Lalance & Grosjean Manuf'g Co. v. Mosheim

53 F. 380, 1892 U.S. App. LEXIS 2034

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedDecember 22, 1892

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 53 F. 380 (Lalance & Grosjean Manuf'g Co. v. Mosheim) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lalance & Grosjean Manuf'g Co. v. Mosheim, 53 F. 380, 1892 U.S. App. LEXIS 2034 (circtsdny 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

COXE, District Judge.

The decision in the preceding cause (53 Fed. Rep. 375) disposes of this cause also. It is conceded that the defendant sold tbe articles in proof made by tbe Habermann Company. Tbe second claim is intended to cover the product of tbe process described in tbe first claim, and, thus limited, I think it is valid and that tbe defendant has infringed.

Tbe complainant is entitled to tbe usual decree upon tbe second claim

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

COXE, District Judge.

The decision in the preceding cause (53 Fed. Rep. 375) disposes of this cause also. It is conceded that the defendant sold tbe articles in proof made by tbe Habermann Company. Tbe second claim is intended to cover the product of tbe process described in tbe first claim, and, thus limited, I think it is valid and that tbe defendant has infringed.

Tbe complainant is entitled to tbe usual decree upon tbe second claim

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 F. 380, 1892 U.S. App. LEXIS 2034, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lalance-grosjean-manufg-co-v-mosheim-circtsdny-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack