Lovell-McConnell Manufacturing Co. v. Automobile Supply Manufacturing Co.
Citations
- 235 U.S. 383
- 35 S. Ct. 132
- 59 L. Ed. 282
- 1914 U.S. LEXIS 981
Syllabus
<p>In this case a petition for mandamus directing the court below to correct its action is denied and a petition for certiorari granted, and the parties having so stipulated, the papers filed are treated as the record, and the case regarded as submitted for decision on the merits.</p> <p>Although the provisions in the Act of February 13,1911, c. 47, 36 Stat. 901, in regard to clerk’s fee for supervising printing the record, may not apply to appeals from every interlocutory decree, it does apply where the decree, as in this case, although interlocutory in character, is, within the intendment of the statute, a final decree. Smith v. Farbenfabriken of Elberfeld Co., 197 Fed: Rep. 894, approved.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- referring to “an accounting for damages and profits” in a patent case
- “[A] reference to the master to take an account of profits and damages was included in the decree.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: White
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.