# Menasha Wood Split Pulley Co. v. Dodge

> Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · November 29, 1897 · 85 F. 971

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8861261

## Case

- **Full name:** MENASHA WOOD SPLIT PULLEY CO. v. DODGE
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
- **Decided:** November 29, 1897
- **Citations:** 85 F. 971; 29 C.C.A. 508; 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 2296
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Jenkins
- **Judges:** Jenkins, Showalter, Woods
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8861261

## Opinion text

JENKINS, Circuit Judge
(concurring). I concur in the result, but upon these grounds: Assuming, for the purpose of a preliminary injunction, that the patent is valid, as the court rightfully did (Electric Light Manuf'g Co. v. Edison Electric Light Co., 18 U. S. App. 637, 10 C. C. A. 106 , and 61 Fed. 834 ), it still remained that, to warrant a preliminary injunction, the fact of infringement should be made out beyond reasonable doubt (Standard Elevator Co. v. Crane Elevator Co., 9 U. S. App. 556, 6 C. C. A. 100 , and 56 Fed. 718 ). There is here so much of doubt with respect to the proper construction of the claims of the patent and of their infringement that it is needful to have an investigation into the prior art to determine the exact limitation of the claims, and to have “the searchlight of an intelligent cross-examination” to determine conclusively the fact of infringement.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8861261. Public record. Not legal advice.