Richards v. Michigan Cent. R.

Seventh Circuit

Richards v. Michigan Cent. R.

102 F. 508, 42 C.C.A. 484, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 4573

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedJune 7, 1900

DocketNo. 666

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 102 F. 508 (Richards v. Michigan Cent. R.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Richards v. Michigan Cent. R., 102 F. 508, 42 C.C.A. 484, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 4573 (7th Cir. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This action was brought at law to recover damages for infringement of letters patent No. 308,095, issued on November 18, 1884, to' Edward S. Richards. The circuit court, following the ruling of the supreme court in Richards v. Elevator Co., 158 U. S. 299, 15 Sup. Ct. 831, 39 L. Ed. 991, sustained a demurrer to the declaration on the ground that the patent is manifestly invalid upon its face, because “the combination is a pure aggregation.” That view was reasserted in response to a petition for a rehearing. 159 U. S. 477, 16 Sup. Ct. 53, 40 L. Ed. 225. It is urged that the present declaration contains additional averments, but they do not, and, in the nature of things, could not, affect the proposition that the claims of the patent are for aggregations. The judgment below is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This action was brought at law to recover damages for infringement of letters patent No. 308,095, issued on November 18, 1884, to' Edward S. Richards. The circuit court, following the ruling of the supreme court in Richards v. Elevator Co., 158 U. S. 299, 15 Sup. Ct. 831, 39 L. Ed. 991, sustained a demurrer to the declaration on the ground that the patent is manifestly invalid upon its face, because “the combination is a pure aggregation.” That view was reasserted in response to a petition for a rehearing. 159 U. S. 477, 16 Sup. Ct. 53, 40 L. Ed. 225. It is urged that the present declaration contains additional averments, but they do not, and, in the nature of things, could not, affect the proposition that the claims of the patent are for aggregations. The judgment below is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 F. 508, 42 C.C.A. 484, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 4573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richards-v-michigan-cent-r-ca7-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack