St. Claire Foundry Co. v. Union Jack Co.

Seventh Circuit

St. Claire Foundry Co. v. Union Jack Co.

184 F. 989, 106 C.C.A. 667, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5111

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedNovember 18, 1910

DocketNo. 1,578

StatusPublished

This text of 184 F. 989 (St. Claire Foundry Co. v. Union Jack Co.) 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

St. Claire Foundry Co. v. Union Jack Co., 184 F. 989, 106 C.C.A. 667, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5111 (7th Cir. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a decree dismissing the appellant’s bill which charges infringement of six patents issued to one William H. Cox at various dates. While the bill alleges the appellant to be the owner of such patents, no assignment thereof by the patentee appears in evidence, nor is testimony of record tending to prove title derived from his estate or heirs at law, as an alleged decedent. Evidence thereof is tendered, however, on this appeal as omitted by oversight, and for that reason the cause is remanded, with instructions that the bill be dismissed unless within 60 days from the date hereof the costs in the cause in both the Circuit Court and this court up to this date shall have been paid, and appellant (complainant below) shall have submitted to the Circuit Court his further proofs on the question of complainant’s title. In case appellant complainant complies with these conditions, the cause shall be open for rehearing in the court below to the extent that equity may require. Costs in this court are hereby assessed against appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a decree dismissing the appellant’s bill which charges infringement of six patents issued to one William H. Cox at various dates. While the bill alleges the appellant to be the owner of such patents, no assignment thereof by the patentee appears in evidence, nor is testimony of record tending to prove title derived from his estate or heirs at law, as an alleged decedent. Evidence thereof is tendered, however, on this appeal as omitted by oversight, and for that reason the cause is remanded, with instructions that the bill be dismissed unless within 60 days from the date hereof the costs in the cause in both the Circuit Court and this court up to this date shall have been paid, and appellant (complainant below) shall have submitted to the Circuit Court his further proofs on the question of complainant’s title. In case appellant complainant complies with these conditions, the cause shall be open for rehearing in the court below to the extent that equity may require. Costs in this court are hereby assessed against appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 F. 989, 106 C.C.A. 667, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-claire-foundry-co-v-union-jack-co-ca7-1910.