Weston Electrical Instrument Co. v. Stevens

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

Weston Electrical Instrument Co. v. Stevens

118 F. 1023, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5250

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

DecidedOctober 3, 1902

StatusPublished

This text of 118 F. 1023 (Weston Electrical Instrument Co. v. Stevens) 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

Weston Electrical Instrument Co. v. Stevens, 118 F. 1023, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5250 (circtsdny 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

Defendants may call not more than two witnesses to testify that an instrument constructed in accordance with drawing of December, 1888, would in their opinion be inoperative, briefly stating their reasons for. entertaining such opinion, or not more than two witnesses to testify that they have tried to operate an instrument made in conformity to such drawing and have failed to succeed. (2) The motion to take surrebuttal with regard to publication in the London Electrician September 2 and 16, 1882, is denied. (3) As to each of the new publications put in in rebuttal, and referred to in paragraph 3 of the motion, defendants may call one witness to testify what he understands such publication to disclose. (4) Professor Anthony’s statement in cross-question 223 is stricken out. The motion for surrebuttal as to split-spool denied. Ten days’ time allowed to take this surrebuttal.

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

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

Defendants may call not more than two witnesses to testify that an instrument constructed in accordance with drawing of December, 1888, would in their opinion be inoperative, briefly stating their reasons for. entertaining such opinion, or not more than two witnesses to testify that they have tried to operate an instrument made in conformity to such drawing and have failed to succeed. (2) The motion to take surrebuttal with regard to publication in the London Electrician September 2 and 16, 1882, is denied. (3) As to each of the new publications put in in rebuttal, and referred to in paragraph 3 of the motion, defendants may call one witness to testify what he understands such publication to disclose. (4) Professor Anthony’s statement in cross-question 223 is stricken out. The motion for surrebuttal as to split-spool denied. Ten days’ time allowed to take this surrebuttal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 F. 1023, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weston-electrical-instrument-co-v-stevens-circtsdny-1902.