National Button Works v. Wade

72 F. 298, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2562
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
DecidedFebruary 1, 1896
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 72 F. 298 (National Button Works v. Wade) 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
National Button Works v. Wade, 72 F. 298, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2562 (circtsdny 1896).

Opinion

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

Subsequent to the passage of the act of 1887, and prior to the decision of the supreme court in Re Hohorst, 150 U. S. 659, 14 Sup. Ct. 221, applications such as this, when made upon like facts, were uniformly granted in patent causes in (his circuit, and the decided preponderance of authority in other circuits approved such a disposition of them; the act of 1887 being construed as operating in restriction of jurisdiction. The opinion in the Hohorst Case has been held to apply to all patent causes by Judge Wheeler in Smith v. Manufacturing Co., 67 Fed. 801, and by Judge Townsend to apply only to such suits when brought against aliens. Union Switch & Signal Co. v. Hall Signal Co., 65 Fed. 625. See, also, opinion of Judge Colt in Donnelly v. Cordage Co., 66 Fed. 613. The latter construction commended ieself to the judge now sitting, and has been followed in at least two cases, not reported. It is doubtful, however, whether the Hohorst Case can be thus distinguished in view of the later opinion of the supreme court in Re Keasbey & Mattison Co. (Dec. 16, 1895) 16 Sup. Ct. 273, where that court says that the Hohorst Case was "a suit for infringement of a patent right, exclusive jurisdiction of which had been granted to the circuit courts of the United States by sections [of the Revised Statutes] re-enacting earlier acts of congress, and was, therefore, not affected by general provisions regulating the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States concurrent with that of the several states.” The motion to dismiss is therefore denied.

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

Related

Stonite Products Co. v. Melvin Lloyd Co.
315 U.S. 561 (Supreme Court, 1942)
Lewis Blind Stitch Co. v. Arbetter Felling Mach. Co.
181 F. 974 (U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois, 1910)
Ricordi v. John Church Co.
114 F. 1023 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1902)
Bowers v. Atlantic, G. & P. Co.
104 F. 887 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1900)
Lederer v. Rankin
90 F. 449 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio, 1898)
Earl v. Southern Pac. Co.
75 F. 609 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California, 1896)
Consolidated Fastener Co. v. Columbian Fastener Co.
73 F. 828 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York, 1896)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
72 F. 298, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-button-works-v-wade-circtsdny-1896.