Supreme Court of the United States, 1888

Ryder v. Holt

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided December 10, 1888 · Fuller

128 U.S. 525; 9 S. Ct. 145; 32 L. Ed. 529; 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2247 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. Arthur v. Briesen for appellant., Mr. Rowlcmd Gox for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

17 later published cases cite this decision.

Pure Oil Co. v. Puritan Oil Co. (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 1941)
Arrow Distilleries, Inc. v. Globe Brewing Co. (District Court, D. Maryland 1939)
Youngs Rubber Corporation v. CI Lee & Co. (2d Cir. 1930)
Everco Industries, Inc. v. O. E. M. Products Co. (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1974)
Kasch v. Cliett (5th Cir. 1924)
Electric Boat Co. v. Lake Torpedo Boat Co. (District Court, D. New Jersey 1914)
Louis Bergdoll Brewing Co. v. Bergdoll Brewing Co. (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1914)
Diederich v. W. Schneider Wholesale Wine & Liquor Co. (8th Cir. 1912)
A. B. Andrews Co. v. Puncture Proof Footwear Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania 1909)
United States Jaycees v. San Francisco Jr. Cham. of Com. (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1972)
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Allstates Trailer Rental, Inc. (District Court, D. Maryland 1961)
United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1918)
Coca-Cola Co. v. Horstman (5th Cir. 1914)
Sarrazin v. W. R. Irby Cigar & Tobacco Co. (5th Cir. 1899)
Hennessy v. Braunschweiger & Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California 1898)
Dueber Watch-Case Manuf'g Co. v. E. Howard Watch & Clock Co. (2d Cir. 1895)
Kohler Manuf'g Co. v. Beeshore (3d Cir. 1893)

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

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller

delivered the opinion of the court.

It was stipulated in the Circuit Court that this cause should abide the event of Menendez v. Holt, ante, 514, just decided, and the <;same decree in favor of complainants was, therefore, rendered in this as in that case. But it is now assigned for error that, as defendant and' complainants below were citizens of the same State, and the bill did not allege that the trade-mark' in controversy was “ used on goods intended to be transported to a foreign country,” Act of March 3, 1881, c. 138, § 11,. 21 Stat. 502, the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction, and the decree must be reversed for that reason. The objection is well taken, and the decree is accordingly ' '

Reversed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.