Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

180 F. 112

Docket No. 326.

Wright Co. v. Paulhan

Second Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided June 14, 1910.)

Second Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1910-06-14

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.</p>

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 1913

2 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on Wright Co. v. Herring-Curtiss Co. · Wright Co. v. Paulhan

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1910-06-14

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

¶2For opinion below, see 177 Fed. 261.

¶3Clarence J. Shearn, Israel Ludlow, and James Hamilton, for appellant.

¶4Williamson & Smith (H. A. Toulmin, of counsel), for appellee.

¶5Before LACOMBE, WARD, and NOYES, Circuit Judges.

¶6PER CURIAM.'

¶7This is an appeal from an order granting preliminary injunction in a suit on the Wright patent which is sued upon in Wright Company v. Herring-Curtiss Company (filed to-day) 180 Fed. 110. At the outset of appellee’s brief it is stated that the essential question on which the controversy pivots is whether or not defendant in using the alleged infringing machines utilized the rear vertical rudder in conjunction with the ailerons or adjustable margins in maintaining lateral balance. '

¶8In this case as in the other we have conflicting affidavits as to questions of fact, and for the reasons expressed in the Herring-Cur-tiss we think the order for preliminary injunction should be reversed, with costs.

/180/f1d/112 · .json · Public domain