Richards v. Hays

U.S. Circuit Court

Richards v. Hays

24 F. 277, 1885 U.S. App. LEXIS 2072

DecidedApril 28, 1885

StatusPublished

This text of 24 F. 277 (Richards v. Hays) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Richards v. Hays, 24 F. 277, 1885 U.S. App. LEXIS 2072 (uscirct 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This bill is founded upon two patents issued to Samuel H. Daddow, and to Esther H. Daddow, executrix of Samuel H. Daddow, Nos. 8,361 and 134,128, respectively. They are both for improvements in squibs for blasting, and it is alleged that the first claim of 8,361 and the second claim of 134,128 have been infringed [278]*278by the defendant. Numerous witnesses have been examined touching tlieir prior knowledge and use of fuses embodying the essential features of those described in both patents. If this testimony is believed, it is decisive against the complainant. While it would serve no useful purpose to consider it in detail, it is sufficient to say that we are unable to discredit it, and hence the bill is dismissed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

This bill is founded upon two patents issued to Samuel H. Daddow, and to Esther H. Daddow, executrix of Samuel H. Daddow, Nos. 8,361 and 134,128, respectively. They are both for improvements in squibs for blasting, and it is alleged that the first claim of 8,361 and the second claim of 134,128 have been infringed [278]*278by the defendant. Numerous witnesses have been examined touching tlieir prior knowledge and use of fuses embodying the essential features of those described in both patents. If this testimony is believed, it is decisive against the complainant. While it would serve no useful purpose to consider it in detail, it is sufficient to say that we are unable to discredit it, and hence the bill is dismissed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 F. 277, 1885 U.S. App. LEXIS 2072, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richards-v-hays-uscirct-1885.