Case law

Brown v. Noyes

4 F. Cas. 414 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1846

Ellsworth v. Brewer, 11 Pick. 319 ; State Bank v. Hurd, 12 Mass. 172 ; Ramsdell v. Soule, 12 Pick. 129 . … S.] 185; [Sheehy v. Mandeville] 6 Cranch [10 U. S.] 267; [McCormick v. Sullivant] 10 Wheat. [23 U. S.] 193; [Voorhees v. Jackson] 10 Pet. [35 U. S.] 451; 3 Ohio, 306; Wilde v. Com., 2 Metc. [Mass.] 408; Hopkin v.

Perry Manuf'g Co. v. Brown

19 F. Cas. 298 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Jul 1, 1847

Perry Manuf'g Co. v. Brown

19 F. Cas. 299 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Sep 15, 1847

See Brown v. Noyes [Case No. 2,023]; People v. Judges of New York Common Pleas, 2 Denio, 197 . … S. v. Ames [Case No. 14,441]; Clark v. Sohier [Id. 2,835]; Springer v. Foster [supra].

Merrimac Mattress Mfg. Co. v. Brown

122 F. 87 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Apr 7, 1903

Birdsell v. Shaliol, 112 U. S. 485 , 5 Sup. Ct. 244, 28 L. Ed. 768 ; Tuttle v. Matthews (C. C.) 28 Fed. 98 . *89 Anticipation is the leading defense upon which testimony is offered. … Another leading case upon this subj’ect is Coffin v. Ogden, 18 Wall. 120 , 21 L.

Brown v. Rubber-Step Manuf'g Co.

4 F. Cas. 427 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Feb 4, 1878

Palmer v. John E. Brown Mfg. Co.

84 F. 454 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Dec 13, 1897

Neither is the complainants’ case aided by the rules discussed and applied in Electric Co. v. La Rue, 139 U. S. 601 , 11 Sup. Ct. 670, Potts & Co. v. Creager, 155 U. S. 597 , 15 Sup. … Ct. 194, and National Cash-Register Co. v. Boston Cash Indicator & Recorder Co., 156 U. S. 502, 515 , 15 Sup.

Brown v. Hartford Fire Ins.

4 F. Cas. 379 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Jul 1, 1858

Smith v. Smith, 4 Wend. 468 ; Schermerhorn v. Schermerhorn, 5 Wend. 513 ; Bellows v. Shannon, 2 Hill, 86 . … Gibson v. Winter, 5 Ad. & E. [5 Barn. & Adol.] 96; Wilkinson v. Linds, 7 Mees. & W. 81; Phillips v. Clagett, 11 Mees. & W. 84.

Silver & Co. v. J. P. Eustis Mfg. Co.

142 F. 525 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Jan 5, 1906

The Brown patent was for a bath-tub seat; but this seat did not show any sleeves to receive the hanger arms, nor any frictional coaction between the sleeves and the arms. … But amendments were filed which it is not necessary here to discuss; and the patent was allowed after giving full weight to the Fraser and Brown patents.

The Mentor

17 F. Cas. 15 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1825

Drysdale v. The Ranger [Case No. 4,097]; Sprague v. Kain [Id. 13,250]; Humphreys v. The America [Id. 6.869]; Atkins v. Burrows [Id. 618]; Whitton v. The Commerce [Id. 17,-604]; Thorne v. White [Id. 13,989]; Black v. … See Beale v. Thompson, 4 East, 546, 563; Miller v. Brant, 2 Camp. 590. Miller v. Brant, 2 Camp. 590. Miller v. Brant, 2 Camp. 590; Beale v. Thompson, 4 East, 546, 565; 15 Vin. Abr. “Mariners,” D. F.; Atkins v.

Seamans v. Loring

21 F. Cas. 920 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1816

Smith v. Steinback, 2 Caines, Cas. 158; Garrigues v. Coxe, 1 Bin. 592 ; Chitty v. Selwyn, 2 Atk. 359; Camden v. Cowley, 1 W. Bl. 417; 1 Marsh. Ins. 262; Bird v. Appleton, 8 Term R. 562; Bell v. … Lee v. Massachusetts F. & M. Ins. Co., 6 Mass. 208 ; Brown v. Hartford Ins. Co., 3 Day, 58 . On the whole, the district judge concurs with me in the opinion, that the motion for a new trial must be overruled.

Chamberlain v. Chandler

5 F. Cas. 413 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1823

See,also,Caton v. Burton, Cowp. 330; 2 Brown, Civ. & Adm. Law, 108, 110; 3 Bl. Comm. 106; Zouch. Adm. 104. … No distinction has been recognized between torts to property and torts to persons, on the high seas; and in Le Caux v. Eden, the court .seemed to think that none existed. In the case of Lindo v.

United States v. Martin

155 F. 264 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Apr 23, 1907

BROWN, District- Judge. The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Coffin v. Jenkins

5 F. Cas. 1188 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1844

This opinion was adopted by Lord Alvanley in Wilkinson v. Frasier, 4 Esp. 182; and more recently in the court of exchequer, in Perrott v. Bryant, 2 Younge & C. Exch. 61; in Mair v. … Adm. tits. 54, 60; 1 Browne, Civ. & Adm. Law, 499, 500; 2 Browne, Civ. & Adm. Law, 415, 416, 457. I observe, too, that there are some irregularities in the present caso. The libel is sworn to, but not the answer.

Packard v. The Louisa

18 F. Cas. 958 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1846

[Penhallow v. Doane] 3 Dall. [3 U. S.] 54, 56; [Brown v. U. S.] 8 Cranch [12 U. S.] 137. But, on those general principles, where and how employed must the vessel be, to give a lien? And to whom on board? … Lewis v. The Elizabeth Jane [Id. 8,321]; 1 C. Rob. Adm. 34; 2 Brown, Civ. Law, 49.

In re Murphy

87 F. 549 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 18, 1898

Hut it was held in Com. v. Brown, 107 Mass. 144 , 45 N. E. 1 , that the statute is to be construed to apply to all sentences imposed after it came into force. … But the supreme judicial court of Massachusetts, in Com. v. Brown, 167 Mass. 144 , 45 N. E. 1 , already referred to, at page 146, 167 Mass., and at page 1, 45 N.

Browne v. United States

4 F. Cas. 441 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1851

S. v. Wilkins, 6 Wheat. [19 U. S.] 135; U. S. v. McDaniel, 7 Pet. [32 U. S.] 1; U. S. v. Ripley, Id. 18; U. S. v. Fillebrown, Id. 28. And this principle had been applied to very many cases in the circuits. … S. v.

Cushman v. Ryan

6 F. Cas. 1070 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1840

The answer, by way of defence, in substance states, that while the ship was lying at Delago bay, the respondent being on shore, a signal was made from the ship, for him to come on board; that on repairing on board, he was … See 1 Brown, Civ. Law, 500; 2 Brown, Civ. Law, 436, 437. Code, lib. 4. tit. 20, c. 9. § 1; Pothier. Pand. lib. 22, S. N. 19; 2 Story, Eq. Jur. § 5130.

Ex parte Giddings

10 F. Cas. 336 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1814

By the settled law of the admiralty, a seaman, disabled on board a merchant ship, would, under like circumstances, have been entitled to his full wages for the whole voyage. Chandler v. Grieves, 2 H. Bl. COO. … Wells v. Osman, 2 Ld. Raym. 1044; Abb. Shipp, pt. 4. c. 2, §§ 1, 5; 2 Brown. Adm. Law, 533; Robinet v. The Exeter, 2 C. Rob. Adm. 2C1; The Beaver, 3 C. Rob. Adm. 92; Hulle v. Heightman, 2 East, 145.

United States Peg Wood, Shank & Leather Board Co. v. B. F. Sturtevant Co.

122 F. 470 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Mar 25, 1903

Judge Colt has very fully commented upon this principle of the patent law in Goodyear Shoe Machinery Co. v. Spaulding, 49 C. C. A. 88 , 110 Fed. 400 . … The Supreme Court have also discussed it in The Keystone Bridge Co. v. Phœnix Iron Co., 95 U. S. 274 , 24 L. Ed. 344 .

The A. Heaton

43 F. 592 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Sep 9, 1890

In Sherwood v. … The Ben Flint, 1 Biss. 562, 568 ; The Sea Gull, Chase, 145 ; Brown v. The BradishJohnson, 1 Woods, 301 ; The Tulchen, 2 Fed. Rep. 600; The Clatsop Chief, 7 Sawy. 274 , 8 Fed.