Cases

SANBORN, Circuit Judge. The plaintiff below has appealed from an order of the District Court granting a motion made by the defendant that the plaintiff’s bill in equity for infringement of patents be dismissed. The plaintiff has alleged in his complaint that he was the inventor and the owner of the exclusive right to use the improvements described therein and patented to him by letters patent No. 802,004, issued October 17, 190

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS IN MANDAMUS OR ALTERNATIVELY IN PROHIBITION Before SOMERVILLE, P.J., and PRITCHARD, DIXON, MANFORD, KENNEDY, NUGENT and LOWENSTEIN, JJ. PRITCHARD, Judge. These extraordinary proceedings for writs of mandamus or for prohibition have as a basis the identical (Count II) petitions of Raymond E. Glasnapp and Harry A. Morris against Landmark Bancshares and Landmark

433 B.R. 269 (2010) In re AVON TOWNHOMES VENTURE, Debtor. No. 05-53243-RLE. United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California. July 3, 2010. *272 Stanley A. Zlotoff, Law Offices of Stanley A. Zlotoff, San Jose, CA, for Avon Townhomes Venture. MEMORANDUM DECISION REGARDING COURT'S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ROGER L. EFREMSK

41 Cal.App.2d 828 (1940) NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant, v. LILLIAN CUNNINGHAM, Respondent. Civ. No. 2466. California Court of Appeals. Fourth Appellate District. December 5, 1940. Lowell E. Lathrop, Walter S. Coen and Donald E. Ruppe for Appellant. Kenneth J. Murphy and Harry H. Parsons for Respondent. Marks, J.

BRATTON, Circuit Judge. Hughes Tool Company, hereinafter referred to as Hughes, brought this action against Chicago Pneumatic Tool Company, hereinafter referred to as Pneumatic, alleging infringement of claims 1, 2, and 3 of Fletcher patent No. 1,856,627; of claims I. 2, and 3 of Scott and Garfield patent No. 1,983,316; of claims 1, 2

246 U.S. 58 (1918) GULF, COLORADO & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY v. STATE OF TEXAS. No. 158. Supreme Court of United States. Argued January 25, 1918. Decided March 4, 1918. ERROR TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, THIRD SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT, OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. *59 Mr. Gardiner Lathrop, with whom Mr

CAMPBELL, District Judge. This is an action based on the alleged infringement of reissue patent No. 15,627, to George Clements, assignor by direct and mesne assignments of one-half to Clements Manufacturing Company, and one-half to the Hoover Company, for vacuum cleaner, reissued June 12,1923, on application filed April 30, 1923. Original patent No. 1,392,624, dated October 4, 1921, on application filed June 14, 1911.

Gantt, P. J. On February 26, 1887, the Winner Investment Company of Kansas City, Missouri, represented by its president, W. E. Winner, made the following proposition to W. Y. Lippineott, Jr., of the same place, in a letter of that date addressed to him, as follows: “W. V. Lippineott, JEsq., City: “Deab Sib: — I will sell you the lands known as South Evans

The bill in this case prays for the specific performance of a contract for the conveyance of certain real estate, made by the defendant with the plaintiff. The parties to the contract were both heirs at law of one Eliza Angell, whose last will and testament had been admitted to probate, and an appeal taken from the probate thereof, was, at the time of making the contract, pending in this court and undetermined. It was, thereupon, agreed that the plaintiff, Martin, should carry on and prosecut

Robert S. Holland filed in the county court of Tom Green County an application to probate an instrument as the will of his deceased mother, Mrs. Susan E. Holland. Mrs. Nimitz and others, daughters of Mrs. Holland, joined by their husbands, contested the probate of the instrument, on the grounds, first, that Mrs. Holland was without testamentary capacity, and second, that she was under undue influence from Robert S. Holland. Trials in the County Court and in the District Court, to which an app

This is a suit, in the name of the State of Texas, on a liquor dealer's bond, to recover the penalty for a breach of the conditions of the bond, that the liquor dealer would not permit to be sold in his place of business malt liquor to any person under the age of twenty-one years. The petition set out the bond, which is dated March 6, 1891, and is conditioned in the terms of the statute. It was alleged that the defendant executed the bond for the purpose of procuring a retail license t

PARDEE, Circuit Judge. The appellant C. P. Hudson assigns as error in the proceedings in the circuit court that the court overruled the demurrer to the complainant’s bill, contending that, on the face of the bill, the court ivas without jurisdiction in equity to grant relief. If the bill is viewed purely as one brought by the holder of the legal title to real estate against parties in pos

Fish, P. J. G. Ober & Sons Company held a note on P. F. Matthews, of Pike county, for $506, which fell due on November. 1,1901; and, on October 14, 1901, sent his note to the New South Savings Bank, of Barnesville, Ga,, for collection and remittance of the proceeds. On November 21, 1901, the bank collected the amount due on the note from Matthews. The bank never remitted the amount so collected to the Ober C

It seems that on the 23d day of July, 1888, E. G. Puckett executed a deed of trust on a stock of drugs to appellant as trustee, to secure a debt due by him to Behrens Castles, of Waco, Texas, amounting to the sum of $312.83, with interest from July 21, 1888, at 12 per cent per annum. By the terms of said deed in trust the trustee was empowered to at once take sole and exclusive charge and possession of said property, to the exclusion of the mortgagor and all other persons, and the same sell

This action was brought by R.M. Gano, Clara B. Gano, as surviving wife of John T. Gano, deceased, administering the community estate of herself and her deceased husband as survivor under the statute, and C.W. Gano, against C.H. Silliman, The Land Mortgage Bank of Texas, and H.L. Payne. The case made by the amended petition and trial amendment is thus stated in the application for the writ of error, and is in the main sufficiently full for the purposes of this opinion: "That on a

This is a suit brought by the surviving wife and child of Horace Daniels, who was killed by the collapse of a bridge over which he, as engineer, was propelling a locomotive and freight train. The case turns upon the question of the proper care upon the part of appellant in constructing and maintaining the bridge. This is a second appeal of the case, the first being reported in 1 Texas Civil Appeals, 695. We will consider the assignments of error in the order presented in the brief. In