EX PARTE IN THE MATTER OF FRANKLIN AND ABBEVILLE RAILWAY COMPANY

Citator

Cited By

• Radio Corp. of Am. v. Radio Eng'g Labs., Inc., 293 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1934)
  …e original inventor. 21 F. (2d) 918. Writs of certiorari brought the controversy here. 278 U.S. 562. This court affirmed the decree on the authority of Morgan v. Daniels, 153 U.S. 120, and Victor Talking Machine Co. v. Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co., 273 U.S. 670. The first of those cases lays down the rule [*6] that “ where the question decided in the Patent Office is one between the contesting parties as to priority of invention, the decision there made must be accepted as controlling upon that question of…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Westinghouse Elec. & MFG. Co. v. DE Forest Radio Tel. & Tel. Co. & four other cases, 21 F.2d 918 (3d Cir. 1927)
  …ngton court is applicable to that casé under the doctrine of Morgan v. Daniels. Earles v. Drake Mfg. Co. (C. C. A.) 300 F. 265; Victor Talking Machine Co. v. Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. (D. C.) 290 F. 565, affirmed (C. C. A.) 8 F.(2d) 41, affirmed 273 U. S. 670, 47 S. Ct. 474, 71 L. Ed. In the appeals from the decrees in the Wilmington eases, we understand no question is raised as to the applicability of that doctrine; the one question there is whether or not, under the doctrine, the plaintiffs had overco…
• Schock v. Malloy, 26 F.2d 621 (8th Cir. 1928)
  …d tend to confuse rather than clarify it. ,Crawford v. Neal, 144 U. S. 585, 12 S. Ct. 759, 36 L. Ed. 552, affirmed in Miller v. Robertson, 266 U. S. 243, 45 S. Ct. 73, 69 L. Ed. 265, cited with approval in Williams v. Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co., 273 U. S. 670, 47 S. Ct. 474, 71 L. Ed. 832; Taback v. Arai (C. C. A.) 21 F.(2d) 161, 163; Majestic Co. v. Orpheum Circuit (C. C. A.) 21 F.(2d) 720, 731; Munn, County Treasurer, v. Des Moines Nat. Bank (C. C. A.) 18 F.(2d) 269; Collins Oil Co. v. Central Trust Co…