DUGGER
v.
TAYLOE; SAME V. SAME
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
These are writs of error brought for' the review of judgments of the Supreme Court of Alabama. No assignment of errors was returned with the writ in either of the cases, as required by § 997 of the Revised Statutes. No counsel has appeared for the plaintiffs in error, but the cases have both been submitted by the defendants in error on briefs, without any specification of errors by the plaintiffs, as required by Rule 21, § 2, 108 U. S. 585. We, therefore, affirm the judgment in each case, .under § 4 of the same rule, 108 U. S. 585, for want of a due prosecution of the writ of error. Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Cuno Eng'g Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp., 314 U.S. 84 (U.S. 1941)…ere disclosed by the prior art. More must be done than to utilize the skill of the art in bringing old tools into new combinations. Hailes v. Van Wormer, 20 Wall. 353, 368; Pickering v. McCullough, 104 U. S. 310, 318; Thatcher Heating Co. v. Burtis, 121 U. S. 286, 294; Concrete Appliances Co. v. Gomery, 269 U. S. 177, 184-185; Powers-Kennedy Contracting Corp. v. Con [*90] crete Mixing & Conveying Co., 282 U. S. 175, 186; Carbice Corp. v. American Patents Dev. Co., 283 U. S. 420. Respondent, however, contends…
-
Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (U.S. 1894)…ater date than the Wright patent of 1881, it would be held to be an infringement thereof, and, under the authorities, “that which infringes if later,..anticipates if earlier.” Peters v. Active Mfg. Co., 129 U. S. 530; Thatcher Heating Co. v. Burtis, 121 U. S. 286, 295; Grant v. Walter, 148 U. S. 547, 554; Gordon v. Warder, 150 U. S. 47; Knapp v. Morss, 150 U. S. 221. In this view of the case it is not deemed necessary to determine whether the C. A. Hague patent, No. 243,123, of June 21,1881, or the Berlew &…
-
Knapp v. Morss, 150 U.S. 221 (U.S. 1893)…of the Hall patent, they would constitute an infringément thereof, for the .rule is well established that “that which infringes, if later, would anticipate if earlier.” Peters v. Active Mfg. Co., 129 U. S. 530, 537 ; Thatcher Heating Co. v. Burtis, 121 U. S. 286, 295 ; Grant v. Walter, 148 U. S. 547, 554; Gordon v. Warder, ante, 47. If; however, the patent • could be sustained at' all, it would have to be restricted and confined to. the specific combination described in the second claim as indicated by the…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence