Case law

General Electric Co. v. Condit Electrical Mfg. Co.

191 F. 511 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 24, 1911

BROWN, District Judge. This is a petition for a preliminary injunction against infringement of letters patent to Hewlett & Emmet, No. 800,916, October 3, 1905, and of letters patent to Emmet & Plewlett. … General Electric Company v. Hartman, 187 Fed. 131 .

Saxonville Mills v. Russell

21 F. Cas. 595 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1870

The general rule, as established by the statutes for finding dutiable, value, is to take the value in the principal markets of the country of exportation, and to add the charges incurred to get the goods on board ship. … The cost, of packing is sometimes one of these charges, as in Barnard v. Morton [Case No. 1.005]. In other instances it forms a part of the price of the article, being itself of no value, as in Harding v.

Ex parte Fuller

9 F. Cas. 976 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1842

The case of Shumway v. … That is sufficiently shown by the case of Townson v. Tickell, 3 Barn. & Ald. 31, cited at the bar, and the still later case of Doe d. Smyth v. Smyth. 6 Barn. & C. 112. Brown v. Wood, 17 Mass. 68 , and Ward v.

Abbott v. Essex Co.

1 F. Cas. 16 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1854

This has been the law since the case of Pells v. Brown, Cro. Jac. 590. … Newman.] 1 Brown, Ch. 188; [Everest v. Gell,] 1 Ves. Jr. 286; Lord Alvanley, [Rawlins v. Goldfrap,] 5 Ves. 440; Lord Loughborough, [Chandless v. Price,] 3 Ves. 99; Sir William Grant, [Barlow v.

Munson v. Standard Marine Ins.

145 F. 957 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Jul 3, 1906

In Cunard Steamship Co. v. Marten (1903) 2 K. … In Xenos v. Fox, L. R. 4 C. P. 665, and in Cornell v. Travelers’ Ins. Co., 175 N. Y. 239 , 67 N.

Perkins Electric Switch Mfg. Co. v. Knowles

187 F. 635 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Sep 14, 1910

BROWN, District Judge. The bill charges infringement of claims 4 and 6 of letters patent No. 626,927, June 13, 1899, issued to complainant as assignee of Charles G. Perkins, for “Incandescent Lamp Socket.” “4. … Co. v. Perkins Elec. Switch Mfg. Co., 179 Fed. 511 , 103 C. C. A. 116 . In this opinion reference is made to the opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals in the Buchanan Case, 135 Fed. 90 , 67 C. C.

The Niphon's Crew

18 F. Cas. 269 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1849

[Sheppard v. Taylor] 5 Pet. [30 U. S.] 710; Pitman v. Hooper [Case No. 11,185]. … Two Catherines [supra]; Pitman v. Hooper [supra]. See Bronde v.

United States v. Hunt

26 F. Cas. 432 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1841

The learned counsel for the defendant has asked the court to direct the jury, that the officers of the ship are clothed, not merely with a civil, but with a military power, over the seamen on board. … UNITED STATES (HUNT v.). See Case No. (i,9l>0. Verdict for the defendant, “not guilty.”

Rich v. Parrott

20 F. Cas. 677 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1858

In Vandewater v. Mills, 19 How. [60 U. … If the cargo be not placed on board, it is not bound to the vessel, and the vessel cannot be in default for the non-delivery of goods never received on board.

In re Babcock

2 F. Cas. 289 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1844

S. v. Cushman, [Case No. 14,908;] Berg v. Radeliffe, 6 Johns. Ch. 302 ; Hollier v. Eyre, 9 Clark & F. 1, 4, 5. … This distinction was maintained in Ex parte Bloxham, 6 Ves. 449; Ex parte Crossley, 3 Brown, Ch. 237; and Ex parte Parr, 18 Ves. 63.

United States v. Grush

26 F. Cas. 48 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1829

It is agreed between the parties, that the place where the vessel, (the Pacific,) on board of which the offence was committed, lay at anchor at the time of the commission of the offence, was between Lovel's Island. … See Rex v. Bruce. 2 Leach. 1093; Ryan & R. 243. I do not now go over the grounds of this opinion, having upon other occasions gone into them somewhat at large.

The Marianna Flora

16 F. Cas. 736 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1822

If he did nothing more than approach, without indicating an intention to board or to attack the Marianna Flora, no law is to be found within my knowledge which imputes it to him as a fault or violation of duty, and I am as … The cases of Murray v. The Charming Betsy, 2 Cranch [6 U. S.] 64, Little v. Barreme, Id. 170, and Maley v. Shattuck, 3 Cranch [7 U.

Indurated Fibre Industries Co. v. Grace

52 F. 124 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Jul 28, 1892

. § 1104, and Shickle v. Foundry Co., 22 Fed. Rep. 105. What is said in Robinson on Patents rests entirely on Shickle v. … The expressions in Brown v. Piper, 91 U.

In re Guild

11 F. Cas. 106 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1845

Such was the conclusion in Alfonso v. U. S. [Case No. 188]. … Bl. 641; Lickbarrow v. Mason, 6 Term R. 131; Brown v. Clarke, 12 Mees. & W. 25; 1 Dowl. & L. 409.

In re Brown, Durrell & Co.

121 F. 605 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Mar 28, 1903

The last paragraph of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Robertson v. Downing, 127 U. S. 607 , 8 Sup. Ct. 1328, 32 L. Ed. 269 , would indicate that the time to protest did not begin to run until then. … The decision of the board of general appraisers is affirmed.

Davies v. United States

172 F. 298 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Jul 7, 1909

The United States contends that the latter court has, in effect, overruled the Miller Case in United States v. Benneche, 153 Fed. 861 , 83 C. C. A. 43 , and United States v. Seyd, 158 Fed. 408 , 85 C. C. A. 518 . … Judgment of Board of General Appraisers to be reversed.

The Mary

16 F. Cas. 932 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1812

Leaper v. Smith, Bunb. 79. Upon a careful examination of the case of U. S. v. Vowel, 5 Cranch [9 U. … See Sheppard v. Gosnold, Vaughan, 159, 166; Courtney v. Bower, 1 Ld. Raym. 501; Hale, “Customs;” Harg. Law Tracts, 123; Peisch v. Ware, 4 Cranch [8 U. S.] 347, 355, note; Reeves, Shipp. (2d Ed.) 196, etc.; Reniger v.

Bentley v. Phelps

3 F. Cas. 244 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1847

See Shapley v. Rangeley, [Case No. 12,707;] Brown v. Brown, [Id. 1,994.] … Mortg. 373, note; Robinson v. Cropsey, 2 Edw. Ch. 138 ; 2 Ball & B. 274; Kelleran v. Brown. 4 Mass. 444 . 3.

Hunt v. United States

12 F. Cas. 948 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1812

Smith, 2 Brown, Ch. 579. How far the same principles will avail the party in a court of law, has been a subject of much discussion of late years. In Peel v. … See People v. Jansen, 7 Johns. 332 ; Rathbone v. Warren, 10 Johns. 587 ; Pain v. Packard. 13 Johns. 174 ; People v. Berner, Id. 383; Fulton v. Matthews, 15 Johns. 433 ; Powell v. Waters, 17 Johns. 176 ; King v.

De Valle Da Costa v. Southern Pac. Co.

160 F. 216 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Mar 16, 1908

Co. v. Woodworth, 111 U. S. 138 , 4 Sup. Ct. 364, 28 L. … The opinion in Connor v. New York, N. H. & H. R. R. (R. I.) 68 Atl. 481 , expressly refuses to follow Dennick v. Railroad Co., 103 U. S. 11 , 26 L.