Case law

Hampton v. Foster

127 F. 468 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Jan 6, 1904

See, also, Shepard v. Creamer, 160 Mass. 496 , 36 N. … Butterfield v. Smith, 101, U. S. 570, 25 L. Ed. 868 .

Washburn v. Gould

29 F. Cas. 312 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1844

That such was the practice of the board of commissioners for patents, and that such had been decided to be the law by Judge Thompson, in the case of Van Hook v. … So the law is laid down in Thomas v. Sorrell, Vaughan, 351. See, also, Warren v. Arthur, 2 Mod. 317.

Woodworth v. Curtis

30 F. Cas. 565 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1847

The leading and controlling decision upon this question is that of Wilson v. Rousseau, 4 How. [45 U. S.] 682. … Pat. 242, 327; Sawin v. Guild [Case No. 12,391J. In those cases in 4 How. [45 U.

Adams v. Burks

1 F. Cas. 100 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Mar 6, 1871

Adams v. Burks, 84 U. S. (17 Wall.) 453 . [In Hatch v. Adams. 22 Fed. … [In McKay v.

Manufacturers' Paper Co. v. Allen-Higgins Co.

154 F. 906 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Jul 8, 1907

“At the same meeting at which the new stock was authorized, a new board of directors was elected, a majority of which board consisted of officers of or of persons representing tlie Worcester Safe Deposit & Trust Company. … Scott v. Deweese, 181 U. S. 202 , 21 Sup. Ct. 585, 45 L. Ed. 822 ; Handley v. Stutz, 139 U. S. 417 , 11 Sup. Ct. 530, 35 L. Ed. 227 ; Pullman v. Upton, 96 U. S. 328 , 24 L. Ed. 818 ; Chubb v. Upton, 95 U. S. 665 , 24 L.

United States v. Jewett

84 F. 142 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Dec 4, 1897

BROWN, District Judge. … S. v. Britton, 107 U. S. 655 , 2 Sup. Ct. 512; Coffin v. U. S., 156 U. S. 432, 448 , 15 Sup. Ct. 394.

Potter v. Ocean Ins. Co.

19 F. Cas. 1173 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1837

It was so held in Padelford v. Boardman, 4 Mass. 548 , and Clark v. U. S. Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 7 Mass. 365 , See, also, 1 Phil. Ins. 348, 349; 2 Phil. Ins. 241, 242. … See cases on this clatise, Dorr v. Pacific Ins. Co., 7 Wheat. [20 U. S.] 582; Janney v. Columbian Ins. Co., 10 Wheat. [23 U. S.] 411. 410-418; 1 Phil. Ins. 154, 158.

Johnson v. Merry Mount Granite Co.

53 F. 569 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Nov 15, 1892

. ■' In Trembly v. … That the law of this state requires this is positively settled in Brown v. Insurance Co., 117 Mass. 479 , and Mullen v. Railroad Co., 127 Mass. 86 , and was evidently the theory of the court in Maine in Larrabee v.

Wheeler v. The Eastern State

29 F. Cas. 894 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1854

John v. Paine] 10 How. [51 U. S.] 557; Lowry v. The Portland [Case No. 8,583]), and being equally applicable to steamers, I should more than doubt whether any local custom could be allowed to vary it. … It is testified by those on board the Admiral, that when they were about abreast of the upper end of the Lower Middle, they first saw the Eastern State, and she was then about half a mile off and three points on the starboard

Emerson v. Howland

8 F. Cas. 634 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1816

It is also as clear from the evidence, that the slave behaved himself to the entire satisfaction of the master; for in the letter to his owner, he says, “Ned has behaved himself extraordinary well, while on board, and has … Adm. 261; Hoyt v. Wildfire, 3 Johns. 518 ; Brooks v. Dorr, 2 Mass. 39 ; *637 Ward v. Ames, 9 Johns. 138 ; Sullivan v. Morgan, 11 Johns. 66 ; Rice v. The Polly & Kitty [Case No. 11,754]; Mahoon v.

Lockwood v. Cutter Tower Co.

18 F. 653 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Nov 22, 1883

Lockwood v. Cleveland, 18 Fed. Rep. 37. … Lockwood v. Cleaveland, 6 Fed. Rep. 727.

United States v. New Bedford Bridge

27 F. Cas. 91 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Apr 15, 1847

Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. [25 U. S.] 419, 452 (Thompson, J.); Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. [22 U. … [Brown v. State of Maryland] 12 Wheat. [25 U. S.] 440.

Coombs v. Duncan

1 F. 733 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Apr 17, 1880

Foster, but none by the cargo which was on board of that vessel. The cases were tried together, and both vessels were declared blameworthy, and the damages have been assessed. … If, therefore, the libellants in Coombs v.

Ex parte Foster

9 F. Cas. 508 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Apr 30, 1842

In Arnold v. Brown, 24 Pick. 89 , 95, the court said: “An attachment constitutes a mere lien on the property, and the general owner may as well sell, subject to that lien, as any other. … Inj. pt. 1, pp. 109-122, c. 4, §§ 2-7; Thompson v. Brown, 4 Johns. Ch. 619 ; Lee v. Park, 1 Keen, 714; Kenyon v. Worthington. 2 Dickens, 668; Brooks v. Reynolds, 1 Brown, Ch. 183.

Oliver v. Mutual Commercial Marine Ins.

18 F. Cas. 664 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1855

Subsequently, it was acertain-ed by the brokers, that their principals had no goods on board those vessels; and they called on the defendant to correct the mistake, and declared the insurance attached on goods on board the … Motteux v. London Assur. Co., 1 Atk. 545; Collett v. Morrison, 12 Eng. Law & Eq. 171; Phoenix Fire Ins. Co. v. Gurnee, 1 Paige, 278 .

Wallace v. Wilder

13 F. 707 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 23, 1882

Co. v. Clinton, 66 N. Y. 326 ; Ladd v. Board of Trustees, 80 Ill. 233 . … Mass. c. 171, § 9; Leighton v. Brown, 98 Mass. 515 ; Bank of Brighton v. Smith, 12 Allen, 243 ; Ives v. Merchants’ Bank, 12 How. 159, 165 .

Swift v. Brownell

23 F. Cas. 554 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Mar 15, 1875

I think, therefore, that, in applying the-rule quoted from Bourne v. … The court of Ring’s bench, also, in Gale v. Laurie, 5 Barn. &.

Philadelphia & R. R. Co. v. Warren Foundry & Machine Co.

20 F. 205 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Apr 29, 1884

Perhaps the opinion of the supreme court is left in doubt by those cases, as is intimated by Judge Blatchford in Vanderbilt v. … See The Eleonora, supra; Leonard v. Whitwill, 10 Ben. 638 ; The C. H. Foster, 1 Fed. Rep. 733; In re Leonard, 14 Fed. Rep. 53; Atlantic Ins. Co. v. Alexandre, 16 Fed. Rep. 279; The Canima, 17 Fed. Rep. 271.

Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Temple

137 F. 992 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 16, 1905

. ■ The court will observe that it would undoubtedly follow Judge Brown in Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v.

Antisdel v. Bent

122 F. 811 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 11, 1903

Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U. S. 150, 157 , 23 L. Ed. 267 ; Goshen Co. v. Bissell Co., 37 U. S. App. 555, 72 Fed. 67 , 19 C. C. A. 13 , and cases there cited.” … In Woven Wire Company v. Whittlesey, 8 Biss. 23 , Fed. Cas. No. 18,058, it was held that a structure old as a chair seat cannot be patented'as a bed bottom. In Pennsylvania Railroad v.