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, Supreme Court of the United States March 7, 1910U.S. Supreme Court
MOORE v. U S EX REL NEWCOMB MOTOR CO, 216 U.S. 608 (1910)
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. NEWCOMB MOTOR COMPANY.
No. 115.
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)
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.
