Herrick v. Tripp Giant Leveller Co.
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Bresnahan v. Tripp Giant Leveller Co. (1st Cir. 1900)
- Hoeltke v. C. M. Kemp Mfg. Co. (4th Cir. 1936)
- Patillo v. Allen-West Commission Co. (8th Cir. 1901)
- Bresnahan v. Tripp Giant Leveller Co. (1st Cir. 1900)
- Tripp Giant Leveller Co. v. Bresnahan (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts 1899)
- Less v. English (8th Cir. 1898)
- Bresnahan v. Tripp Giant Leveller Co. (1st Cir. 1896)
- Tripp Giant Leveller Co. v. Bresnahan (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts 1895)
- Tripp Giant Leveler Co. v. Rogers (District Court, D. Massachusetts 1894)
- Gamewell Fire-Alarm Tel. Co. v. Municipal Signal Co. (1st Cir. 1894)
- Wine Ry. Appliance Co. v. Baltimore & OR Co. (4th Cir. 1935)
- Frick Co. v. Lindsay (4th Cir. 1928)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The objections made by the appellants touching the form of the bill, whether supplemental or original, and those as to the sufficiency of the allegations of the bill, were not raised in the court below, and cannot be taken for the first time in this court.
The court below was right in holding that the first and third claims of the Cutcheon patent were valid, and were infringed by the machine used by the appellants; that the iron last in the appellants’ machine was a mechanical equivalent for the jack of the patent; and that there was no sufficient proof that the stop mechanism, of the third claim was in use by others prior to October 28, 1887,
As only the first and third claims of (he patent were in controversy, the decree of the court below is to be modified so as to extend to those claims only; otherwise, the decree of the court below is affirmed, with costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.