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

Second Circuit

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

212 F. 156, 129 C.C.A. 12, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 2078

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMarch 14, 1914

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 212 F. 156 (W. S. Tyler Co. v. Ludlow-Saylor Wire Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 F. 156, 129 C.C.A. 12, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 2078, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/w-s-tyler-co-v-ludlow-saylor-wire-co-ca2-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack