McCafferty v. Celluloid Co.

• Decision Date: 14 November 1898
• Citation: 104 F. 305
• Parties: McCAFFERTY et al. v. CELLULOID CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

104 F. 305

McCAFFERTY et al. v. CELLULOID CO.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

November 14, 1898

John R Bennett, for appellants.

J. E Hindon Hyde, for appellee.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York.

Bill by the Celluloid Company against Robert E. McCafferty and Morris L. Holton, co-partners under the firm name of McCafferty &amp Holton, for infringement of letters patent No. 542,452, dated July 9, 1895, and No. 546,360, dated September 17, 1895. The following stipulation between the counsel was filed July 30 1896: 'It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the solicitors for the respective parties that all of the evidence taken or to be taken, and all of the exhibits introduced or to be introduced, on behalf of the defendants, and in rebuttal on behalf of the complainant, in the suit of The Celluloid Company v. The Arlington Manufacturing Company, in equity (No. 25, September term, 1895), in the United States circuit court for the district of New Jersey, shall be considered as evidence duly taken and exhibits duly introduced in this suit, and that a copy of the same may be filed in this cause as original testimony and exhibits, and that the same shall be treated and used in all respects as if regularly taken and introduced in this cause. And it is further stipulated that, upon the filing in this cause of a certified copy of any interlocutory decree entered in the said suit of The Celluloid Company v. The Arlington Manufacturing Company, an interlocutory decree of the same kind and in the same terms may be entered herein, and have the same force and effect as an interlocutory decree would have which was entered herein, after a decision by this court on final hearing. ' The record in the suit against the Arlington Manufacturing Company, in which a decree had been rendered, and the exhibits introduced therein were duly filed and introduced in the suit at bar. March 3, 1898, an interlocutory decree was entered in favor of complainant, and defendants appealed. Motion to dismiss was denied May 19, 1898 (Magic Light Co. v. Economy Gas-Lamp Co., 38 C.C.A. 56, 97 F. 98), without opinion. Motion by appellants to restore the case to the docket. Decree affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The motion by the appellants to restore the cause to docket has been considered, and is denied. The court adheres to the opinion, expressed upon the argument of...