Neff v. Coffield Motor Washer Co.

Fourth Circuit

Neff v. Coffield Motor Washer Co.

210 F. 166, 127 C.C.A. 24, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1900

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedDecember 15, 1913

DocketNo. 1203

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 210 F. 166 (Neff v. Coffield Motor Washer Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Neff v. Coffield Motor Washer Co., 210 F. 166, 127 C.C.A. 24, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1900 (4th Cir. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

ROSE, District Judge.

The appellee is the owner of reissued letters patent No. 12,719, dated November 12, 1907. The original patent was numbered 806,779, and was granted December 12, 1905. The validity of the reissue in suit has been upheld by the court below in Peter T. Coffield & Son v. Spears & Riddle (C. C.) 169 Fed. 641, and in Coffield Motor Washer Co. v. A. D. Howe Co. (C. C.) 172 Fed. 668, and by this court in A. D. Howe Machine Co. v. Coffield Motor Washer Co., 197 Fed. 541, 117 C. C. A. 37. In the last-mentioned case the Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari. 227 U. S. 677, 33 Sup. Ct. 405, 57 L. Ed. 700.

. In the case at bar a preliminary injunction has been issued against the appellants, restraining them pendente lite from making, using, and selling a particular form of water motor alleged to infringe on the patent in suit. From the order granting such injunction this appeal .has been taken.

We refrain from any discussion of the various assignments of error, in order that when, if ever, this cause shall again come before us on appeal from a final decree, neither this court nor the parties may be embarrassed by anything which may be now said. The sole question upon which we are now called upon to pass is whether the learned judge below, in granting this preliminary injunction, improvidently exercised the discretion committed to him by law. Rahley v. Columbia Phonograph Company, 122 Fed. 623, 58 C. C. A. 639. We do not think that he did.

Affirmed.

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

ROSE, District Judge.

The appellee is the owner of reissued letters patent No. 12,719, dated November 12, 1907. The original patent was numbered 806,779, and was granted December 12, 1905. The validity of the reissue in suit has been upheld by the court below in Peter T. Coffield & Son v. Spears & Riddle (C. C.) 169 Fed. 641, and in Coffield Motor Washer Co. v. A. D. Howe Co. (C. C.) 172 Fed. 668, and by this court in A. D. Howe Machine Co. v. Coffield Motor Washer Co., 197 Fed. 541, 117 C. C. A. 37. In the last-mentioned case the Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari. 227 U. S. 677, 33 Sup. Ct. 405, 57 L. Ed. 700.

. In the case at bar a preliminary injunction has been issued against the appellants, restraining them pendente lite from making, using, and selling a particular form of water motor alleged to infringe on the patent in suit. From the order granting such injunction this appeal .has been taken.

We refrain from any discussion of the various assignments of error, in order that when, if ever, this cause shall again come before us on appeal from a final decree, neither this court nor the parties may be embarrassed by anything which may be now said. The sole question upon which we are now called upon to pass is whether the learned judge below, in granting this preliminary injunction, improvidently exercised the discretion committed to him by law. Rahley v. Columbia Phonograph Company, 122 Fed. 623, 58 C. C. A. 639. We do not think that he did.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 F. 166, 127 C.C.A. 24, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neff-v-coffield-motor-washer-co-ca4-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack