Putnam v. Hollender

S.D. New York

Putnam v. Hollender

11 F. 75, 1882 U.S. App. LEXIS 2371

DecidedMarch 1, 1882

StatusPublished

This text of 11 F. 75 (Putnam v. Hollender) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Putnam v. Hollender, 11 F. 75, 1882 U.S. App. LEXIS 2371 (S.D.N.Y. 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

Blatchford, C. J.

I do not deem it necessary or proper, in deciding this motion for attachment, to say more than that, on the construction heretofore given to the plaintiffs’ patent by this court, it is not satisfactorily established that the defendants’ new stopper infringes that patent. For the purposes of this suit, three pivotal connections are necessary, and it is at least doubtful whether such new stopper has more than two. The case is one in which, on well-established principles, the questions involved must he tried on pleadings and proofs, in a new suit, and not in a summary manner in this suit.

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

Blatchford, C. J.

I do not deem it necessary or proper, in deciding this motion for attachment, to say more than that, on the construction heretofore given to the plaintiffs’ patent by this court, it is not satisfactorily established that the defendants’ new stopper infringes that patent. For the purposes of this suit, three pivotal connections are necessary, and it is at least doubtful whether such new stopper has more than two. The case is one in which, on well-established principles, the questions involved must he tried on pleadings and proofs, in a new suit, and not in a summary manner in this suit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 F. 75, 1882 U.S. App. LEXIS 2371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/putnam-v-hollender-nysd-1882.