GAFF v. GOTTFRIED, 128 U.S. 170 (1888)
U.S. Supreme Court
GAFF v. GOTTFRIED, 128 U.S. 170 (1888)
128 U.S. 170
GAFF et al.
v.
GOTTFRIED.
HACK et al.
v.
SAME.
November 5, 1888
R. H. Parkinson, for appellant.
E. Banning and T. A. Banning, for appellee.
BLATCHFORD, J.
These are appeals by the defendants in two suits brought by Matthew Gottfried, in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Indiana, upon the same patent involved in the case of Brewing Co. v. Gottfried, ante, 83, (just decided.) The proofs are the same as in that case, and the same conclusions are reached. The decree in each case is reversed, and each case is remanded to the circuit court, with a direction to dismiss the bill of complaint, with costs.
U.S. Supreme Court
GAFF v. GOTTFRIED, 128 U.S. 170 (1888)
GAFF et al.
v.
GOTTFRIED.
HACK et al.
v.
SAME.
November 5, 1888
R. H. Parkinson, for appellant.
E. Banning and T. A. Banning, for appellee.
BLATCHFORD, J.
These are appeals by the defendants in two suits brought by Matthew Gottfried, in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Indiana, upon the same patent involved in the case of Brewing Co. v. Gottfried, ante, 83, (just decided.) The proofs are the same as in that case, and the same conclusions are reached. The decree in each case is reversed, and each case is remanded to the circuit court, with a direction to dismiss the bill of complaint, with costs.
Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.
