Sproull v. Pratt & Whitney Co.
Decision Date | 07 May 1901 |
Docket Number | 127. |
Citation | 108 F. 963 |
Parties | SPROULL v. PRATT & WHITNEY CO. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
De Lancy Kennedy was in his lifetime a citizen and resident of the state of New York, and died on or about January 16, 1893 leaving a last will and testament which was duly probated. The complainant, a citizen and resident of the state of New York, was appointed administratrix with the will annexed of his estate on September 24, 1894. The defendant is a corporation under the laws of the state of Connecticut. Prior to May 26, 1888, Kennedy was the owner of four letters patent of the United States,-- the first, No. 148,566, dated March 17, 1874, for a machine for applying power in implements used either for cutting, or shearing, or punching, which could be and was, used for shearing without a punch, and which expired June 17, 1891; the second, No. 161,968, dated April 13, 1875 for a spiral punch, which expired on April 13, 1892; the third, No. 267,751, dated November 2, 1882, for an improvement on the spiral punch, which expired on February 17, 1895, in consequence of the expiration of a prior Canadian patent for the same invention; and the fourth, dated January 3, 1888, for a coupler to attach punches of different diameters to a punching machine, which will expire in 1905. The first three patents were issued to Kennedy as inventor. The fourth was issued to Alfred H. Raynal, who assigned it to Kennedy as inventor. On May 26, 1888, Kennedy, as party of the first part, entered into a written contract with the defendant. The essential parts of the agreement, after reciting the ownership of the patents, are as follows ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ohio Citizens Trust Co. v. Air-Way Electric App. Corp.
... ... v. Peninsular Light, etc., Co. C.C., 95 F. 669, affirmed 6 Cir., 101 F. 831; Sproull v. Pratt & Whitney Co., C.C. 1900, 101 F. 265; and Id., 2 Cir., 1901 108 F. 963, or the license is ... ...
-
Cohn v. Compax Corp.
...Foundation, Inc., 2nd Cir., 93 F.2d 475, 477; Pressed Steel Car Co. v. Union Pac. R. R. Co., 2nd Cir., 270 F. 518, 525; Sproull v. Pratt & Whitney Co., 108 F. 963, 965; Tate v. Lewis, 127 F.Supp. 105; H-P-M Dev. Corp. v. Watson-Stillman Co., 71 F.Supp. 906; McLeod v. Crawford, 176 Neb. 513,......
-
Ar-Tik Systems, Inc. v. Dairy Queen, Inc.
...be inferred." The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit cited as authority two earlier cases in that circuit: Sproull v. Pratt & Whitney Co., 108 F. 963 (2 Cir. 1901) and Pressed Steel Car Co. v. Union Pac. R. Co., 270 F. 518 (2 Cir. 1920). It should be noted, however, that in all three c......
-
Lathrop v. Rice & Adams Corporation
...Co. v. Scott (D.C.) 21 F.(2d) 346; Andrews v. Landers (C.C.) 72 F. 666; Sproull v. Pratt & Whitney Co. (C.C.) 97 F. 807, affirmed (C.C.A.) 108 F. 963; Baker Oil Tools v. Burch (C.C.A.) 71 F. (2d) 31; Piaget Novelty Co. v. Headley (C.C.A.) 108 F. 870; Collis Co. v. Consolidated Machine Tool ......