Case law

Tripp Giant Leveller Co. v. Bresnahan

92 F. 391 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Feb 9, 1899

See, also, Vulcanite Co. v. Willis, 1 Flipp. 388, Fed. Cas. No. 5,603; Office Specialty Mfg. Co. v. Winternight & Cornyn Mfg. Co., 67 Fed. *393 928 ; Manufacturing Co. v. Spalding, 35 Fed. 67 ; Paper Co. v. … Hie circuit court of appeals, in the case of Bresnahan v. Leveller Co., 19 C. C.

Hathaway v. Roach

11 F. Cas. 818 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1846

See Sebring v. Ward [supra]; Bowne v. Brown [Case No. 1,743]; The Antelope, 12 Wheat. [25 U. S.] 549. … S. v. La Vengeance] 3 Dall. [3 U. S.] 301; U. S. v. Barker, 2 Wheat. [15 U. S.] 395; [U. S. v. Hooe] 3 Cranch [7 U. S.] 73; 12 Whart. 346 ; [U. S. v. Ringgold] 8 Pet. [33 U.

Prince v. Ogdensburg Transit Co.

107 F. 978 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Mar 20, 1901

In Stephenson v. … Stephenson v.

Humphreys v. Union Ins. Co.

12 F. Cas. 876 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1824

In the present case there were 1100 boxes of. lemons, and 299 boxes of oranges on board. … The court, in Thompson v. Royal Exchange Assur. Co., 16 East, 214, and Hedburg v.

Decatur v. Chew

7 F. Cas. 322 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1813

Johnstone v. Margetson, 1 H. Bl. 261: Nelson v. Tucker, 3 Bos. & P. 257, 4 East, 23S. Taylor v. Pawlett (1759), and Pigot v. White (1785), cited in 1 H. Bl. 2G5, note; Johnstone v. Margetson. Id. 2G1; Nelson v. … Rob. 60 ; Harvey v. Cooke. 6 East, 220; The Orion, 4 C. Rob. 362 , 4 East, 232; Holmes v. Rainier. 8 East, 502, Taylor v. Pawlett and Pigot v. White, supra. Keith v. Pringle, 4 East, 262.

Bentley v. Phelps

3 F. Cas. 252 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1847

Davies, and Hunter v. Marlboro, cited above; Baker v. Whiting, [Id. 786.] … See Nesmith v. Calvert, [Case No. 10,123;] Brown v. Barrett, [Id. 1,991.]

Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Ohio Brass Co.

130 F. 542 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Apr 27, 1904

Justice Brown in that case says: “As a result of the authorities upon this subject, it may be said that, if the new use be so nearly analogous to the former one that the applicability of the device to its new use would occur … The following authorities are important, touching this element of the case: Palmer v. Johnston (C. C.) 34 Fed. 336 ; Smith v. Vulcanite Co., 93 U. S. 436 , 23 L. Ed. 952 ; Union Biscuit Co. v. Peters (C. C.

Whetmore v. Murdock

29 F. Cas. 925 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1847

The Medora [Case No. 8,237], and Brown v. Noyes [Id. 2,023]). … Mills v. Fowkes, 5 Bing. N. C. 455.

Hunter v. Marlboro

12 F. Cas. 957 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Sep 15, 1846

Brown v. Jones [Id. 2,017). But in this particular it has merely denied any contract to give a deed. … Flagg v. Mann [supra]; 1 Sand. Uses & Trusts, 227; 11 Johns. 96 ; 2 Story, Eq. Jur. § 755; Scoby v. Blanchard, 3 N. H. 176; Pritchard v. Brown, 4 N. H. 401; Sugd. Vend. 416; 10 Ves. 511; 15 Ves. 50; 5 Johns.

Yale Lock Manuf'g Co. v. Berkshire Nat. Bank

17 F. 531 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Aug 14, 1883

When the case in Connecticut was decided, Miller v. Bridgeport Brass Co. 104 U. … In Little v. Sargent, 12 O.

Flagg v. Mann

9 F. Cas. 202 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1837

The case of Kelleran v. Brown. 4 Mass. 444 , clearly recognized this distinction in Massachusetts; and, indeed, it pervades the sys-tern of equity jurisprudence on this subject. … Mackreth, 2 Cox. 320. 2 Brown, Ch. 400. which seems to have proceeded on similar principles.

Aiken v. Bemis

1 F. Cas. 229 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1847

Allen v. Blunt, [Case No. 217,] and Taylor v. Carpenter, [Id. 13,785,] and cases there cited: [Leeman v. Allen,] 2 Wils, 160; [Beardmore v. Carrington,] Id. 244; [Coffin v. Coffin,] 4 Mass. 43 ; [Bodwell v. … Davoll v. Brown, [Case No. 3,662.] Webst. Pat. 11; [Brunton v. Hawkes,] 4 Barn. & Ald. 540. Where the patent is for a new combination, and not for newiy invented parts, a violation must extend to the whole. [Prouty v.

United States v. Two Hundred & Seventy-Eight Barrels of Distilled Spirits

28 F. Cas. 297 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1869

Silsbury v. McCoon. 3 Comst. [3 N. Y.] 379; Davis v. Easley, 13 Ill. 1921 Betts v. Lee, 5 Johns. 348 ; Brown v. Sax, 7 Cow. 95 . … Ryder v. Hathaway, 21 Pick. 298 ; Pratt v. Bryant, 20 Vt. 333 ; Colwill v. Reeves, 2 Camp. 576; Bryant v. Ware. 30 Me. 295 ; Beach v. Schmultz, 20 Ill. 185 ; McDowell v. Rissell. 37 Pa. St. 165.

Tubular Rivet & Stud Co. v. O'Brien

93 F. 200 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Jul 29, 1898

In Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. … A lumber dealer who knew that the boards he sold were to be made into a fence to be erected in a particular place could not, I think, be held to be a tort feasor, though the proposed fence constituted an obstruction to a

Filiberto v. Taylor

14 F. 749 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Dec 29, 1882

Again, the libelants argue that the district judge was wrong in requiring them to prove that the contract has the construction which they contend for; citing Funcheon v. Harvey, 119 Mass. 469 . … In that case the master sued for freight under a charter-party, which required him to take on board at St. Johns, Newfoundland, a cargo of fish with all convenient speed, and proceed to Cuba “direct.”

Powell v. Monson & Brimfield Manuf'g Co.

19 F. Cas. 1218 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1824

Abr. p. 232, § 7; Lane v. Dighton, Amb. 409; Withers v. Withers, Id. 151; Smith v. Lord Camelford, 2 Ves. Jr. 699, 713; Lloyd v. Spillet, 2 Atk. 150; Willis v. Willis, Id. 71; Lever v. Andrews, 7 Brown, Parl. Cas. … Ryall, 1 Atk. 59; Lane v. Dighton, Amb. 409; Ex parte Vernon, 2 P. Wms. 549; Sowden v. Sowden, 1 Brown. Ch. 582; Rider v. Kidder, 10 Ves. 360; Lench v. Lench, Id. 511 ; Finch v. Finch, 15 Ves. 50; Mackreth v.

Willard v. Davis

122 F. 363 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Mar 19, 1903

Perkins, and each of the members of said firm, except the seat in the brokers’ board of said O. D. Head. … See Batchelder & Lincoln Co. v. Whitmore, 122 Fed. 355 . decided by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on April 23, 1903. 1. See Equity, vol. 19, Gent. Dig. § 385,

Locke v. United States

15 F. Cas. 740 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Sep 15, 1866

Zeller v. Eckert, 4 How. [45 U. S.] 297; Johnston v. Jones, 1 Black [66 U. S.] 220; Pennock v. Dialogue, 2 Pet. [27 U. S.] 15; 2 Tidd, Prac. 662; U. S. v. King, 7 How. [48 U. S.] 845. … Dredge v. Forsyth, 2 Black [67 U. S.] 568; U. S. v. Breitling, 20 How. [61 U. S.] 254; Phelps v. Mayer, 15 How. [56 U. S.] 160.

Tower v. Bemis & Call Hardware & Tool Co.

19 F. 498 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Feb 28, 1884

Board-man put into the claw of Park’s hammer a serrated piece of steel, called “the cam, n,” which had a rocking motion, and he made a notch in the hammer opposite the cam, and in this way the claw and hammer formed a pipe-wrench … Hailes v. Van Wormer, 20 Wall. 353 ; Reckendorfer v. Faber, 92 U. S. 347 ; Pickering v. McCullough, 104 U. S. 310 ; Packing Co. Cases, 105 U. S. 566 .

In re Freeman

9 F. Cas. 751 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1855

S. v. … See, also, Cooley v. Board of Wardens of Philadelphia, 12 How. [53 U. S.] 299.