Maltby v. Graham

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

Maltby v. Graham

35 F. 206, 1888 U.S. App. LEXIS 2443

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York·Decided May 22, 1888·Published

Opinion

Lacombe, J.

This is an application to restrain the infringement of reissued letters patent No. 5,502, granted to George J. Capewell, July 29, 1873, for a nail extractor. The original patent was granted July 16, 1872. The patent has been twice sustained in this circuit. Maltby v. Converse, Maltby v. Tool Co. It is true that the Taft patent of 1870 (107,121) was not then before the court, but the Pish patent of 1866, (58,626,) which embodies the same principle, was then considered. The defendant’s nail extractor plainly infringes. Motion granted. The propositions which defendants seek to sustain amount to a rehearing of the two cases before Judges Wallace and Shipman, and may be presented at final hearing.

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

Lacombe, J.

This is an application to restrain the infringement of reissued letters patent No. 5,502, granted to George J. Capewell, July 29, 1873, for a nail extractor. The original patent was granted July 16, 1872. The patent has been twice sustained in this circuit. Maltby v. Converse, Maltby v. Tool Co. It is true that the Taft patent of 1870 (107,121) was not then before the court, but the Pish patent of 1866, (58,626,) which embodies the same principle, was then considered. The defendant’s nail extractor plainly infringes. Motion granted. The propositions which defendants seek to sustain amount to a rehearing of the two cases before Judges Wallace and Shipman, and may be presented at final hearing.

Maltby v. Graham, 35 F. 206, 1888 U.S. App. LEXIS 2443 (circtsdny 1888).

Pincite

35 F. 206 (Maltby v. Graham) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.