Reichenbach v. Guggenheim

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

Reichenbach v. Guggenheim

89 F. 1023, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 3129

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

DecidedOctober 11, 1898

StatusPublished

This text of 89 F. 1023 (Reichenbach v. Guggenheim) 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

Reichenbach v. Guggenheim, 89 F. 1023, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 3129 (circtsdny 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

This cause is similar to Huber v. Guggenheim, in which opinion was filed yesterday. 89 Fed. 598. The contract was signed October 16th or 17th. It was on the basis of 50,000 stamps per annum for five years, with privilege of renewal. The alleged false representations as to the validity and scope of the patent, and as to what would constitute infringement, are discussed in the Huber opinion, q. v. There is no proof of any representation that the Union contract was for the full term of the Rice patent. One of the alleged false representations relied upon is that Solomon Guggenheim assured complainants that “this was as good a contract or better than other people had.” This statement appears to be accurate. The Reiehenbach firm seems to have secured better terms than Huber or Pulaski had obtained. The bill is dismissed, with costs.

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

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

This cause is similar to Huber v. Guggenheim, in which opinion was filed yesterday. 89 Fed. 598. The contract was signed October 16th or 17th. It was on the basis of 50,000 stamps per annum for five years, with privilege of renewal. The alleged false representations as to the validity and scope of the patent, and as to what would constitute infringement, are discussed in the Huber opinion, q. v. There is no proof of any representation that the Union contract was for the full term of the Rice patent. One of the alleged false representations relied upon is that Solomon Guggenheim assured complainants that “this was as good a contract or better than other people had.” This statement appears to be accurate. The Reiehenbach firm seems to have secured better terms than Huber or Pulaski had obtained. The bill is dismissed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 F. 1023, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 3129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reichenbach-v-guggenheim-circtsdny-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack