Wright Co. v. Paulhan

Second Circuit

Wright Co. v. Paulhan

180 F. 112, 103 C.C.A. 32, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 4758

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJune 14, 1910

DocketNo. 326

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 180 F. 112 (Wright Co. v. Paulhan) 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

Wright Co. v. Paulhan, 180 F. 112, 103 C.C.A. 32, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 4758 (2d Cir. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.'

This is an appeal from an order granting preliminary injunction in a suit on the Wright patent which is sued upon in Wright Company v. Herring-Curtiss Company (filed to-day) 180 Fed. 110. At the outset of appellee’s brief it is stated that the essential question on which the controversy pivots is whether or not defendant in using the alleged infringing machines utilized the rear vertical rudder in conjunction with the ailerons or adjustable margins in maintaining lateral balance. '

In this case as in the other we have conflicting affidavits as to questions of fact, and for the reasons expressed in the Herring-Cur-tiss we think the order for preliminary injunction should be reversed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.'

This is an appeal from an order granting preliminary injunction in a suit on the Wright patent which is sued upon in Wright Company v. Herring-Curtiss Company (filed to-day) 180 Fed. 110. At the outset of appellee’s brief it is stated that the essential question on which the controversy pivots is whether or not defendant in using the alleged infringing machines utilized the rear vertical rudder in conjunction with the ailerons or adjustable margins in maintaining lateral balance. '

In this case as in the other we have conflicting affidavits as to questions of fact, and for the reasons expressed in the Herring-Cur-tiss we think the order for preliminary injunction should be reversed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 F. 112, 103 C.C.A. 32, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 4758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-co-v-paulhan-ca2-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack