Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. American Fur Refining Co.

Citations

• 120 F. 672
• 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 5296

Syllabus

<p>1. Equity — Evidence in Rebuttal — Irregular Introduction of Evidence in Defense.</p> <p>A defendant cannot take advantage of his own irregularity in introducing evidence in defense on the cross-examination of complainant’s witnesses to exclude evidence taken by complainant in rebuttal.</p> <p>2. Patents — Suit to Restrain Infringement — Parties.</p> <p>In proceedings brought in the joint names of the owner of a patent and another to restrain infringement, it is of no concern to the defendant what may be the terms of the agreement between the parties plaintiff with regard to the patent, whether, as claimed, it in simply an exclusive license to manufacture, or, as suggested, an unlawful combination in restraint of trade. All that can be asked is that the suit snail be carried on by those entitled to do so, of which, with both parties joined, there could be no question.</p> <p>8. Same — Courts—Decisions in Different Circuits.</p> <p>The courts of one circuit are not controlled by the views taken with regard to a patent by the courts of another, nor absolved from an independent examination of the questions involved; such decisions being simply entitled to proper deference, as those of courts of equal standing and authority.</p> <p>¶ 3. See Courts, vol. 13, Cent. Dig. § 328.</p> <p>4. Same — Infringement—Machine fob Plucking Furs.</p> <p>The Sutton patent, No. 383,258, for a machine for plucking fur skins, was not anticipated by anything in the prior art, including therein the Lake (British) patent of 1881, and the H. W. Covert patent of 1884, the two machines differing essentially in the character of the brushes employed to depress the fur and in the effect of their operation; also Jteld infringed.</p>