Streat v. Steinam

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Streat v. Steinam

38 F. 548, 1889 U.S. App. LEXIS 2164

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedApril 17, 1889

StatusPublished

This text of 38 F. 548 (Streat v. Steinam) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Streat v. Steinam, 38 F. 548, 1889 U.S. App. LEXIS 2164 (circtsdny 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Shipman, J.

The motion is denied. The affidavits state that the complainant has obtained further and fuller evidence of the facts relating to his invention since the decision of Streat v. White,1 and has other and further proofs to show that he was the true inventor of the design, and that thé additional proof will show that he was the sole inventor. Neither the general nor the particular facts to which the witnesses will testify are given, nor are any circumstances stated which show the character or the importance of the testimony, or why it was not introduced before, or how it will tend to diminish the weight which was given to the statements of the patentee in his letters to the designer.' The motion cannot be granted upon mere general statements, which disclose nothing in regard to the character of the testimony.

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

Shipman, J.

The motion is denied. The affidavits state that the complainant has obtained further and fuller evidence of the facts relating to his invention since the decision of Streat v. White,1 and has other and further proofs to show that he was the true inventor of the design, and that thé additional proof will show that he was the sole inventor. Neither the general nor the particular facts to which the witnesses will testify are given, nor are any circumstances stated which show the character or the importance of the testimony, or why it was not introduced before, or how it will tend to diminish the weight which was given to the statements of the patentee in his letters to the designer.' The motion cannot be granted upon mere general statements, which disclose nothing in regard to the character of the testimony.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 F. 548, 1889 U.S. App. LEXIS 2164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/streat-v-steinam-circtsdny-1889.