Siebert v. Garratt

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of California

Siebert v. Garratt

22 F. Cas. 104, 8 O.G. 600, 1875 U.S. App. LEXIS 1522

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of California

DecidedSeptember 30, 1875

StatusPublished

This text of 22 F. Cas. 104 (Siebert v. Garratt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Siebert v. Garratt, 22 F. Cas. 104, 8 O.G. 600, 1875 U.S. App. LEXIS 1522 (circtdca 1875).

Pincite

Opinion

SAWYER, Circuit Judge.

This cause came on to be heard at the February term, [105]*105A. D. 1875, of this court, and was argued by counsel, and thereupon, upon consideration thereof, it was ordered, adjudged, and decreed as follows, viz: “That defendant, William T. Garratt, was not the first or original inventor or discoverer of the improvement or discovery claimed by him, in and by those certain reissued letters patent of the United States, number five thousand three hundred and twenty-eight, (No. 5,328), for an alleged new and useful Improvement in lubricators, issued by said defendant, William T. Garratt, on the 18th day of March, A. D. 1873, and is not entitled to a patent therefor; and that said reissued letters patent number five thousand three hundred and twenty-eight (No. 5,328), are declared void, and the same are hereby vacated and set aside by reason of their interference with those certain letters patent of the United States number one hundred and eleven thousand eight hundred and eighty-one, (No. 111,881), for a new and useful improvement in lubricators, issued to complainant, Nicholas Siebert, on the fourteenth (14th) day of February, A. D. 1871.” It was also further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that complainant do have and recover of and from defendant his costs and expenses to be taxed herein.

[On appeal to the supreme court, the decree of this court was affirmed. 98 U. S. 75.]

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

SAWYER, Circuit Judge.

This cause came on to be heard at the February term, [105]*105A. D. 1875, of this court, and was argued by counsel, and thereupon, upon consideration thereof, it was ordered, adjudged, and decreed as follows, viz: “That defendant, William T. Garratt, was not the first or original inventor or discoverer of the improvement or discovery claimed by him, in and by those certain reissued letters patent of the United States, number five thousand three hundred and twenty-eight, (No. 5,328), for an alleged new and useful Improvement in lubricators, issued by said defendant, William T. Garratt, on the 18th day of March, A. D. 1873, and is not entitled to a patent therefor; and that said reissued letters patent number five thousand three hundred and twenty-eight (No. 5,328), are declared void, and the same are hereby vacated and set aside by reason of their interference with those certain letters patent of the United States number one hundred and eleven thousand eight hundred and eighty-one, (No. 111,881), for a new and useful improvement in lubricators, issued to complainant, Nicholas Siebert, on the fourteenth (14th) day of February, A. D. 1871.” It was also further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that complainant do have and recover of and from defendant his costs and expenses to be taxed herein.

[On appeal to the supreme court, the decree of this court was affirmed. 98 U. S. 75.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 F. Cas. 104, 8 O.G. 600, 1875 U.S. App. LEXIS 1522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siebert-v-garratt-circtdca-1875.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack