Case law

Folger v. The Robert G. Shaw

9 F. Cas. 335 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1847

Comm. 295; Gilbreth v. Brown, 15 Mass. 178 ; 5 Dane, Abr. 676 . See the form of entry, Cro. Jac. 213; 5 Bac. Abr. “Nonsuit,” A. … Apsden v. Nixon, 4 How. [45 U. S.] 467; Burnham v. Webster [Case No. 2,179]; Greely v. Smith [Id. 5,749]; Minor v. Mechanics’ Bank of Alexandria. 1 Pet. [26 U. S.] 74.

United States v. Gibert

25 F. Cas. 1287 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1834

S. v. … Quentin directly stated, that it was not on board at the time when he boarded and captured the Panda; and that he never heard of its having been obtained afterwards.

Smith v. Clark

22 F. Cas. 487 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 17, 1850

These all preceded the passage on board the ship Sulley, in 1832, when Mr. Morse and Dr. Jackson conversed on the subject, and when Mr. Morse commenced his labors. … Case No. 9.861; Smith v. Downing, Id. 13.030: Same v. Selden. Id. 13.104; Same v. Eli. Id. 13.043; O’Reilley v. Morse, 15 How. (56 U. S.) 109.]

Bradley v. Converse

3 F. Cas. 1142 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1876

Barnard v. Farwell [Case No. 1,002]; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Howard, 7 Wall. [74 U. S.) 411. Proof of the most satisfactory character is exhibited in the record, that H. N. … , and that the resignation of said Farwell as director was at that meeting presented by the clerk, not accepted and laid on the table, as alleged in the bill of complaint, and that thereafterwards the fourth vote of the board

Cahill v. Beckford

4 F. Cas. 1003 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Apr 15, 1871

Por another case involving this patent, see Cahill v. Brown, Case No. 2,291.]

Woodworth v. Stone

30 F. Cas. 593 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1845

former trial of the old patent before me, I held the claim substantially (although obscurely worded) to be a claim for the invention of a particular combination of machinery for planing, tonguing, and grooving, and dressing boards … [For other cases involving this patent, see note to Bicknell v. Todd, Case No. 1,389.]

Walker v. Rawson

29 F. Cas. 45 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Feb 15, 1879

In Brown v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37 , it is said by the court that judicial notice may be taken of facts of common knowledge in the arts. … Brook v. Aston, 8 El. & Bl. 478.

Levy v. Burley

15 F. Cas. 434 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1836

S. v. Mitchell [Case No. 15,791], my late brother, Mr. … See, also, Roberts v. Eddington, 4 Esp. 88; Drake v. Marryat, 1 Barn. & C. 473, 476.

Dodge v. Porter

98 F. 624 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Nov 14, 1899

Hubel v. Dick (C. C.) 28 Fed. 132, 140 ; National Cash-Register Co. v. Lamson Consol. Store-Service Co. (C. C.) 60 Fed. 603 . … Justice Brown, speaking-tor the supreme court, in Topliff v. Topliff, 145 U. S. 156, 161 , 12 Sup. Ct. 825, 828, 36 L.

The Rapid

20 F. Cas. 297 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1812

Adm. 19G, and the judgment of the king’s bench in Potts v. Bell. S Term. … Justice Heath, in Bell v. Gilson, 1 Bos. & P. 345, have likewise been cited. It is hardly necessary to combat their doctrines further than to suggest, that the decision itself did not meet the approbation of Mr.

Providence Steam-Engine Co. v. Hathaway Manuf'g Co.

79 F. 512 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Mar 9, 1897

BROWN, District Judge. … Dushane v. Benedict, 120 U. S. 630 , 7 Sup. Ct. 696; Railroad Co. v. Smith, 21 Wall. 261 .

Kip-Armstrong Co. v. Mills

130 F. 28 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Apr 20, 1904

Lake Shore Co. v. Brake Shoe Co., 110 U. S. 229 , 4 Sup. Ct. 33, 28 L. Ed. 129 ; Loom Co. v. Higgins, 105 U. S. 580 , 26 L. Ed. 1177 ; Canda v. Michigan Malleable Iron Co. (C. C. A.) 124 Fed. 486 ; Thomson-Houston Elec. … Co. v. Union Ry. Co. (C. C.) 84 Fed. 890 . In Westinghouse v. N. Y. Air Brake Co. (C.

Citizens' Bank v. Nantucket Steamboat Co.

5 F. Cas. 719 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1811

I am not unaware of the bearing of the cases of Halsey v. Brown, 3 Day, 346 , and Renner v. Bank of Columbia, 9 Wheat. [22 U. S.] 582, 590, 591, in the opposite direction, but they are clearly distinguishable. … In Rex v.

Sullivan v. Sullivan

23 F. Cas. 362 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Jul 1, 1856

In Meek v. … Andrew v. Wrigley, 4 Brown, Ch. 125. No explanation of this acquiescence is given or attempted by the bill.

United States v. Coolidge

25 F. Cas. 619 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1813

S. v. Hudson (February term, 1812 [7 Cranch ( 11 U. … Comm. 5, 44, 26S; 2 Browne, Oiv. & Adm. Law.

Ladd v. Tudor

14 F. Cas. 923 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1847

Wright v. Wells [Case No. 18,101]. … Brown v.

Jenks v. Cox

13 F. Cas. 537 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Jan 15, 1872

providing, that if any officer or seaman shall be prevented by sickness or death from performing the entire voyage, he shall be entitled to such part of the whole amount of his stipulated share as'the time of his services on board … Hathaway v. Jones [Case No. 6,212], It is not important to consider the testimony in the record in relation to the cause for which the seaman desired his discharge.

Smith v. Nichols

22 F. Cas. 612 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 18, 1872

Brown, who is asked a question on this point; and he is of opinion that the old fabric would not be imperfect in this particular. “Int. 5. … [For other cases involving this patent, see Smith v. Glendale Elastic Fabrics Co., Case No. 13,050.]

Jenkins v. Eldredge

13 F. Cas. 504 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1845

This rule was laid down by Lord Bathurst in Browning v. Barton, 2 Dickens, 508, and was fully recognized by Lord Thurlow, in Sawyer v. Bowyer, 1 Brown, Ch. 388, 2 Dickens, 639, and in Vaughan v. … In Dexter v.

The Enterprise

8 F. Cas. 729 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1855

it The transcript of the record of the district court, which is produced, shows that James Hagan and two oiner seamen, filed their libel in that court, in a chuse of subtraction of wages, alleged to have been earned on board … The very celebrated case of Penhallow v. Doane’s Adm’rs, 3 Dall. [3 U. S.] 54, was a libel in personam, to enforce a decree-in rem.