MOORE v. U S EX REL NEWCOMB MOTOR CO, 216 U.S. 608 (1910)

U.S. Supreme Court

MOORE v. U S EX REL NEWCOMB MOTOR CO, 216 U.S. 608 (1910)

216 U.S. 608

EDWARD B. MOORE, Commissioner of Patents, Plaintiff in Error,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. NEWCOMB MOTOR COMPANY.
No. 115.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 7, 1910

Messrs. Frederick P. Fish, Melville Church, and Albert G. Davis for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Charles H. Duell, Robert N. Kenyon, and Walter F. Rogers for defendant in error.

Per Curiam: The Writ of Error is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Frasch v. Moore, 211 U.S. 1, 53 L. Ed. 65, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 6; Rousseau v. Brown, 21 App. D. C. 73, 80; Johnson v. Mueser, 212 U.S. 284, 53 L. Ed. 515, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 390; E. C. Atkins & Co. v. Moore, 212 U.S. 285, 53 L. Ed. 515, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 390; Gaines v. Knecht, 212 U.S. 561, 53 L. Ed. 652, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 688; Gaines v. Knecht, 27 App. D. C. 530, 532; United States ex rel. Taylor v. Taft, 203 U.S. 461, 51 L. Ed. 269, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 148; United States v. Lynch, 137 U.S. 280, 34 L. Ed. 700, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 114; Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Hopkins, 130 U.S. 210, 226, 32 S. L. ed. 908, 914, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 503. The application for Certiorari is also denied.


U.S. Supreme Court

MOORE v. U S EX REL NEWCOMB MOTOR CO, 216 U.S. 608 (1910)

 216 U.S. 608

EDWARD B. MOORE, Commissioner of Patents, Plaintiff in Error,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. NEWCOMB MOTOR COMPANY.
No. 115.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 7, 1910

Messrs. Frederick P. Fish, Melville Church, and Albert G. Davis for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Charles H. Duell, Robert N. Kenyon, and Walter F. Rogers for defendant in error.

Per Curiam: The Writ of Error is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Frasch v. Moore, 211 U.S. 1, 53 L. Ed. 65, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 6; Rousseau v. Brown, 21 App. D. C. 73, 80; Johnson v. Mueser, 212 U.S. 284, 53 L. Ed. 515, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 390; E. C. Atkins & Co. v. Moore, 212 U.S. 285, 53 L. Ed. 515, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 390; Gaines v. Knecht, 212 U.S. 561, 53 L. Ed. 652, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 688; Gaines v. Knecht, 27 App. D. C. 530, 532; United States ex rel. Taylor v. Taft, 203 U.S. 461, 51 L. Ed. 269, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 148; United States v. Lynch, 137 U.S. 280, 34 L. Ed. 700, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 114; Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Hopkins, 130 U.S. 210, 226, 32 S. L. ed. 908, 914, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 503. The application for Certiorari is also denied.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

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.