Union Stone Co. v. Allen

U.S. Circuit Court

Union Stone Co. v. Allen

14 F. 353, 1882 U.S. App. LEXIS 2765

DecidedNovember 17, 1882

StatusPublished

This text of 14 F. 353 (Union Stone Co. v. Allen) 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

Union Stone Co. v. Allen, 14 F. 353, 1882 U.S. App. LEXIS 2765 (uscirct 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

Butler, D. J.

Little need be said in disposing of this case. Tne plaintiff’s patent is for an “improvement in oil-stone holders.” The presumption of novelty, arising from the letters, is not overcome by anything shown. A comparison of the two holders-^-plaintiff’s and defendant’s — leaves no room to doubt that the latter contains the elements of the former. The use for which the defendant’s “tool,” as he denominates it, is intended, is unimportant, as is also the manner of using it. The plaintiff is entitled to every use to which his invention may be applied. The defendant cannot have the benefit of the plaintiff’s holder, even though he may have improved it by the addition of a bar, back of the stone. It would be unprofitable to discuss the law 'or testimony of the case at greater length

The plaintiff must have a decree.

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

Butler, D. J.

Little need be said in disposing of this case. Tne plaintiff’s patent is for an “improvement in oil-stone holders.” The presumption of novelty, arising from the letters, is not overcome by anything shown. A comparison of the two holders-^-plaintiff’s and defendant’s — leaves no room to doubt that the latter contains the elements of the former. The use for which the defendant’s “tool,” as he denominates it, is intended, is unimportant, as is also the manner of using it. The plaintiff is entitled to every use to which his invention may be applied. The defendant cannot have the benefit of the plaintiff’s holder, even though he may have improved it by the addition of a bar, back of the stone. It would be unprofitable to discuss the law 'or testimony of the case at greater length

The plaintiff must have a decree.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 F. 353, 1882 U.S. App. LEXIS 2765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/union-stone-co-v-allen-uscirct-1882.