McGann Mfg. Co. v. Ruggles-Coles Engineering Co.

Third Circuit

McGann Mfg. Co. v. Ruggles-Coles Engineering Co.

41 F.2d 1005, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 2997

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJuly 9, 1930

DocketNo. 4278

StatusPublished

This text of 41 F.2d 1005 (McGann Mfg. Co. v. Ruggles-Coles Engineering Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McGann Mfg. Co. v. Ruggles-Coles Engineering Co., 41 F.2d 1005, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 2997 (3d Cir. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In the Court below, the Ruggles-Coles Engineering Company, hereafter called plain[1006]*1006tiff, charged the MeGann Manufacturing Company, Inc., Robert G. MeGann and William J. Kuntz, inter alia, with infringement of Patent No. 1,229,978, granted June 12, 1917, for a drier. On final hearing, the court below, in an opinion [34 F.(2d) 519] in substance found that the charge that Kuntz, the patentee, bad assigned the patent to the plaintiff under duress, was not true, that the patent was infringed and that MeGann and Kuntz were’personally liable as defendants. The opinion thoroughly discusses every phase of the ease, and this court is in accord with its reasonings and conclusion. There is nothing we can now say that has not already been said in Judge Johnson’s self-sustaining opinion. We therefore adopt it as expressive of our views, and affirm the decree below.

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

PER CURIAM.

In the Court below, the Ruggles-Coles Engineering Company, hereafter called plain[1006]*1006tiff, charged the MeGann Manufacturing Company, Inc., Robert G. MeGann and William J. Kuntz, inter alia, with infringement of Patent No. 1,229,978, granted June 12, 1917, for a drier. On final hearing, the court below, in an opinion [34 F.(2d) 519] in substance found that the charge that Kuntz, the patentee, bad assigned the patent to the plaintiff under duress, was not true, that the patent was infringed and that MeGann and Kuntz were’personally liable as defendants. The opinion thoroughly discusses every phase of the ease, and this court is in accord with its reasonings and conclusion. There is nothing we can now say that has not already been said in Judge Johnson’s self-sustaining opinion. We therefore adopt it as expressive of our views, and affirm the decree below.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 F.2d 1005, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 2997, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgann-mfg-co-v-ruggles-coles-engineering-co-ca3-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack