Thompson v. Barry

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania

Thompson v. Barry

23 F. Cas. 1023, 1875 U.S. App. LEXIS 1606

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 27, 1875

StatusPublished

This text of 23 F. Cas. 1023 (Thompson v. Barry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thompson v. Barry, 23 F. Cas. 1023, 1875 U.S. App. LEXIS 1606 (circtedpa 1875).

Pincite

Opinion

BY

THE COURT.

Motion to dissolve preliminary injunction. A bill was filed by complainants to restrain infringements of the reissued and extended letters patent Nos. 2.569, 2,570, and 2,571 and to obtain an account of profits and assessment of damages arising from said infringement. A preliminary injunction was granted on October 19, 1871. In June, 1874, complainants amended their bill, setting forth an assignment, dated after the granting of injunction, by the complainant, Thompson, -f all his interest in said letters patent to the Pennsylvania [1024]*1024Salt Company. An answer was filed by defendants in July, 1874. In October, 1875, and before tbe taking of any proofs in the cause by either party, the defendant obtained leave to file a supplemental answer, in which he set up that, at the time of granting the injunction, the complainant, the Pennsylvania Salt Company, had no interest in said letters patent, and that the complainant, Thompson, by the aforesaid assignment, had, since the injunction, parted with all his right under the patents. The facts were not denied.

[For other cases involving this patent, see .note to Pennsylvania Salt Manuf'g Co. v. Gu-genheim, Case No. 10,954.] Mr. Baldwin, for the motion,

cited Wheeler v. McCormick [Case No. 17,490].

Mr. Harding, contra.

C. A. V. Motion overruled.

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

BY

THE COURT.

Motion to dissolve preliminary injunction. A bill was filed by complainants to restrain infringements of the reissued and extended letters patent Nos. 2.569, 2,570, and 2,571 and to obtain an account of profits and assessment of damages arising from said infringement. A preliminary injunction was granted on October 19, 1871. In June, 1874, complainants amended their bill, setting forth an assignment, dated after the granting of injunction, by the complainant, Thompson, -f all his interest in said letters patent to the Pennsylvania [1024]*1024Salt Company. An answer was filed by defendants in July, 1874. In October, 1875, and before tbe taking of any proofs in the cause by either party, the defendant obtained leave to file a supplemental answer, in which he set up that, at the time of granting the injunction, the complainant, the Pennsylvania Salt Company, had no interest in said letters patent, and that the complainant, Thompson, by the aforesaid assignment, had, since the injunction, parted with all his right under the patents. The facts were not denied.

[For other cases involving this patent, see .note to Pennsylvania Salt Manuf'g Co. v. Gu-genheim, Case No. 10,954.] Mr. Baldwin, for the motion,

cited Wheeler v. McCormick [Case No. 17,490].

Mr. Harding, contra.

C. A. V. Motion overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 F. Cas. 1023, 1875 U.S. App. LEXIS 1606, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-barry-circtedpa-1875.