Parisian Comb Co. v. Eschwege

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

Parisian Comb Co. v. Eschwege

92 F. 721, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 2984

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1899

StatusPublished

This text of 92 F. 721 (Parisian Comb Co. v. Eschwege) 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

Parisian Comb Co. v. Eschwege, 92 F. 721, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 2984 (circtsdny 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

This is another application to require a witness to answer a question propounded during taking of proofs in equity. As has been so often pointed out, the decision of the supreme court in Blease v. Garlington, 92 U. S. 1, seems controlling. It seems as if the information sought to be elicited wrere not essential to complainant’s case, nor, indeed, relevant or material to the issues which, according to practice, will be first argued, viz. validity of patent, construction of claim, and infringement. Nevertheless this court is not the final arbiter as to whether the testimony is or is not immaterial, and, in view of the object intended by the amendment of the sixty-seventh rule, it should obtain and preserve the answers for the benefit of the appellate tribunal. Blease v. Garlington, supra. As to order of proof, it is not understood that the trial judge will be without power to enter a final decree assessing damages, if the evidence warrants it, without going through the formality of an interlocutory decree, and reference to a master. The question must he answered.

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

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

This is another application to require a witness to answer a question propounded during taking of proofs in equity. As has been so often pointed out, the decision of the supreme court in Blease v. Garlington, 92 U. S. 1, seems controlling. It seems as if the information sought to be elicited wrere not essential to complainant’s case, nor, indeed, relevant or material to the issues which, according to practice, will be first argued, viz. validity of patent, construction of claim, and infringement. Nevertheless this court is not the final arbiter as to whether the testimony is or is not immaterial, and, in view of the object intended by the amendment of the sixty-seventh rule, it should obtain and preserve the answers for the benefit of the appellate tribunal. Blease v. Garlington, supra. As to order of proof, it is not understood that the trial judge will be without power to enter a final decree assessing damages, if the evidence warrants it, without going through the formality of an interlocutory decree, and reference to a master. The question must he answered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 F. 721, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 2984, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parisian-comb-co-v-eschwege-circtsdny-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack