27 F.2d 334 - Trane Co. v. Nash Engineering Co. — 27 F.2d 334

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 1970

3 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts; James M. Morton, Judge.

¶2On petition for rehearing. Denied.

¶3For former opinion, see 25 F.(2d) 267.

¶4See, also, 20 F.(2d) 439; 22 F.(2d) 868.

¶5Fred L. Chappell, of Kalamazoo, Mich., Samuel D. Elmore, of Boston, Mass., and Arthur T. Holmes, of La Crosse, Wis., for appellant.

¶6Louis W. Southgate and Charles T. Hawley, both of Worcester, Mass., for appellee.

¶7Before BINGHAM, JOHNSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

¶8PER CURIAM.

¶9The gist of the defendant’s elaborate petition for rehearing is that on this record prior use and sale are, as a matter of law, made out. This contention cannot be sustained. Of the three sales urged, we fully concur with what the court below found and ruled concerning the Chicago Pump transaction and the S. D. Warren Paper Mill transaction. The third alleged prior sale, the William Penn Hotel transaction, was nothing but an executory contract made in May, 1915, for the Jennings apparatus, not completed and delivered so as to constitute an actual sale until September, 1915. Taking the facts in this transaction, although open to-a somewhat different construction, exactly as defendant’s learned counsel state them, the ease is ruled by McCreery Engineering Co. v. Massachusetts Fan Co. (C. C. A.) 195 F. 498, in which the same learned counsel made an exactly reverse contention, which was sustained by this court in an able opinion by Judge Brown, concurred in by Judges Putnam and Aldrich. We have no disposition to overrule that case.

¶10Petition denied.