W. S. Tyler Co. v. Ludlow-Saylor Wire Co.

212 F. 156, 129 C.C.A. 12, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 2078
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided March 14, 1914·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The District Court sustained the pleas to the jurisdiction as to the causes of action based on trade-mark and unfair competition, but allowed a replication to be filed to the plea in respect to the cause of action on infringement. This was the proper practice under old rule in equity 33, then in force. The issue on the plea was tried, and the court sustained the plea and dismissed the bill. This is the proper practice under new rule. 29 (198 Fed. xxvi, 115 C. C. A. xxvi). From that decree an appeal was taken to this court, but it should have been taken to the Supreme Court. See sections 128 and 238 of the Judicial Code. Mechanical Appliance Co. v. Castleman, 215 U. S. 437, 30 Sup. Ct. 125, 54 L. Ed. 272; Herndon Co. v. Norris & Co., 224 U. S. 496, 32 Sup. Ct. 550, 56 L. Ed. 857.

The appe'al is dismissed.

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

W. S. Tyler Co. v. Ludlow-Saylor Wire Co., 212 F. 156, 129 C.C.A. 12, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 2078 (2d Cir. 1914).

212 F. 156 (W. S. Tyler Co. v. Ludlow-Saylor Wire Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ingrassia v. ACW Mfg. Corporation
24 F.2d 703 (Second Circuit, 1928)
General Baking Co. v. Shults Bread Co.
288 F. 954 (E.D. New York, 1923)
Perrett v. Clara Kimball Young Film Corp.
269 F. 613 (Second Circuit, 1920)
Lane v. Equitable Trust Co.
262 F. 918 (Eighth Circuit, 1919)