Nash v. Bettendorf

D.C. Circuit

Nash v. Bettendorf

38 App. D.C. 110, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 2093

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJanuary 2, 1912

DocketNo. 737

StatusPublished

This text of 38 App. D.C. 110 (Nash v. Bettendorf) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nash v. Bettendorf, 38 App. D.C. 110, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 2093 (D.C. Cir. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Robb

delivered tbe opinion of tbe Court:

This case involves tbe same application of Bettendorf that we have considered in the two preceding cases. Nash, tbe other party to tbe interference and tbe appellant here, was connected with tbe W. H. Miner Company and assigned bis application to that company. As tbe date of conception claimed by Nash is March 7, 1908, we must, for tbe reasons assigned in appeal No. 735, affirm tbe decision of tbe Commissioner awarding priority of invention to Bettendorf. Affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice Robb

delivered tbe opinion of tbe Court:

This case involves tbe same application of Bettendorf that we have considered in the two preceding cases. Nash, tbe other party to tbe interference and tbe appellant here, was connected with tbe W. H. Miner Company and assigned bis application to that company. As tbe date of conception claimed by Nash is March 7, 1908, we must, for tbe reasons assigned in appeal No. 735, affirm tbe decision of tbe Commissioner awarding priority of invention to Bettendorf. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 App. D.C. 110, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 2093, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nash-v-bettendorf-cadc-1912.