Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

13 F. 673

Gottfried v. Stahlmann

United States Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota · decided 1882-10-23

<p>Patents for Inventions—Validity.</p> <p>The validity of letters patent !Sro. 42580, for a new and improved mode of pitching barrels, sustained on the authority of Gottfrieds. Crescent Brewing Co. urue, 479.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1888

2 counsel of record

Relies on The Propeller Genesee Chief Pierce Kelsey Cheney Hunter Swan Clark Strong v. Fitzhugh Littlejohn Peck · The Ottawa · The "Colorado"

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1882-10-23

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Patents for Inventions—Validity.

¶2The validity of letters patent !Sro. 42580, for a new and improved mode of pitching barrels, sustained on the authority of Gottfrieds. Crescent Brewing Co. urue, 479.

¶3Banning é Banning, for complainants.

¶4J. B. é W. H. Sanborn and G. K. Davis, for defendants.

¶5Before McCrary and Nelson, JJ.

¶6Per Curtam.

¶7At the conclusion of the argument on the final hearing in these cases, the court on consultation were convinced that the *674patent should be'sustained, but deferred announcing an opinion until a decision should be reached by Judge Gresham, of the Indiana circuit, who had under consideration the validity of the patent in the case of Gottfried v. Brewing Co., in which and the cases before this court substantially the same testimony is presented. Judge Gresham, after a rehearing, sustained the patent. We concur with this decision, and think it unnecessary to give any reasons additional to those announced by him.

¶8Decree will be entered in favor of the complainants, with costs, which are to be divided between all of said cases equally.

¶9See Gottfried v. Crescent Brewing Co. ante, 479, withdrawing the ruling in same case, 9 Fed. Rep. 762.

/13/f1d/673 · .json · Public domain