Richardson v. Croft

S.D. New York

Richardson v. Croft

11 F. 800, 1880 U.S. App. LEXIS 2772

DecidedNovember 29, 1880

StatusPublished

This text of 11 F. 800 (Richardson v. Croft) 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

Richardson v. Croft, 11 F. 800, 1880 U.S. App. LEXIS 2772 (S.D.N.Y. 1880).

Pincite

Opinion

Blatchford, C. J.

Waiving the question as to whether the defendants have shown the diligence which is required, it does not appear satisfactorily that the' matters now sought to be set up are relevant or material. If the state of facts now appearing on a consideration of all the affidavits were shown on a final hearing, the plaintiff’s patent would not be defeated. The Tyrrel device for reflecting figures attached to slides running in grooves in the table does not suggest or meet the plaintiff’s invention. Mr. Boyd Elliot’s affidavit leaves it not at all clear that the Castner mirrors were adjustably connected to each other, or that they were publicly used. There is nothing to show that the two book references have any relevancy. The motion to amend the answer and the motion to dissolve the injunction are denied-

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

Blatchford, C. J.

Waiving the question as to whether the defendants have shown the diligence which is required, it does not appear satisfactorily that the' matters now sought to be set up are relevant or material. If the state of facts now appearing on a consideration of all the affidavits were shown on a final hearing, the plaintiff’s patent would not be defeated. The Tyrrel device for reflecting figures attached to slides running in grooves in the table does not suggest or meet the plaintiff’s invention. Mr. Boyd Elliot’s affidavit leaves it not at all clear that the Castner mirrors were adjustably connected to each other, or that they were publicly used. There is nothing to show that the two book references have any relevancy. The motion to amend the answer and the motion to dissolve the injunction are denied-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 F. 800, 1880 U.S. App. LEXIS 2772, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richardson-v-croft-nysd-1880.