Spencer v. Pennsylvania R.

U.S. Circuit Court

Spencer v. Pennsylvania R.

34 F. 899, 1887 U.S. App. LEXIS 2955

DecidedOctober 10, 1887

StatusPublished

This text of 34 F. 899 (Spencer v. Pennsylvania R.) 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

Spencer v. Pennsylvania R., 34 F. 899, 1887 U.S. App. LEXIS 2955 (uscirct 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The first claim (which alone is involved) must be construed as for the particular means devised and shown, to perform the work specified therein; not as a broad claim for a method of accomplish[902]*902ing the result. In this view the claim is valid. There is no sufficient evidence to justify the charge of non-utility, anticipation, or want of invention. The devise used by the respondent is substantially identical with the complainant’s, to the extent covered by this claim. A decree must therefore go against him for an account.

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

Per Curiam.

The first claim (which alone is involved) must be construed as for the particular means devised and shown, to perform the work specified therein; not as a broad claim for a method of accomplish[902]*902ing the result. In this view the claim is valid. There is no sufficient evidence to justify the charge of non-utility, anticipation, or want of invention. The devise used by the respondent is substantially identical with the complainant’s, to the extent covered by this claim. A decree must therefore go against him for an account.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 F. 899, 1887 U.S. App. LEXIS 2955, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spencer-v-pennsylvania-r-uscirct-1887.