MARLBORO COTTON MILLS

v.

FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Chew v. United States, 9 F.2d 348 (8th Cir. 1925)
  …ific date is alleged as to the formation of the scheme, but simply that it was prior to the mailing of the letters. The exact date of the formation of the scheme need not be alleged. See Baker v. United States (C. C. A.) 285 F. 15, certiorari denied 260 U. S. 749, 43 S. Ct. 248, 67 L. Ed. 494. [8] (12) That the indictment does not allege who placed the letter specified in each count in the United States mails. The allegation that the “defendants * •’ * did .place and cause to be placed”- is sufficient. To a…
• Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. v. Hughes Tool Co., 97 F.2d 945 (10th Cir. 1938)
  …conceived and made by a mechanic in the course of constructing a device on the patent. Johns-Manville Corp. v. National Tank Seal Co., 10 Cir., 49 F. 2d 142; Pangborn Corporation v. W. W. Sly Manufacturing Co., 4 Cir., 284 F. 217, certiorari denied 260 U.S. 749, 43 S.Ct. 249, 67 L.Ed. 495. But in addition to the language contained in the claims and specifications, and the drawing, reliance is placed upon Hughes Tool Co. v. International Supply Co., 10 Cir., 47 F. 2d 490, to sustain the contention that the…
• Hanna v. Brictson MFG. Co., 62 F.2d 139 (8th Cir. 1932)
  …l. It was a proceeding by bill in equity to restrain the collection of a final judgment for laek of proper service, and it was therefore, under the circumstances here shown to exist, properly brought in the federal court.” C’eartiorari was denied in 260 U. S. 749, 43 S. Ct. 248, 67 L. Ed. 494. 4. That the court below was justified in holding that it had no jurisdiction over the Brietsons we have no doubt. They! were not necessary parties to the first cause of action. They had not been parties to equity case…