1006
DIS
J'lIlDERAL REPORTER.
:MEMORANDUM DECISIONS.
BASS et aJ. T·. HENRY' ZELTNER BREWING CO. (Circuit Court of AppeaIIi. Second Circuit. March 17, 1899.) No. 99. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Rowland Cox, for appellants. Lalns O. Raegener, for appellee. Before WALLACE, LACOMBE. and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Decree a1firmed, with costa, upon opinion of court below. 87 Fed. 468. COOPER v. NEWELL. (Circuit Court of Appeals. Fifth Circuit.) Que.. to the supreme court of the United States. See 19 Sup. Ct. 506, 173 U. S. 555; 94 Fed. 792. FLOMERFELT v. NEWWITTER et al. (Circuit Oourt of Appeals. Second Circuit. March 15, 1899.) No. 100. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Edwin H. Brown, f9r appellant. R. B. McMaster, for appellee. Before WALLACE and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Decree a1firmed, with costs, on opinion of the court below. 88 Fed. 696. Gl1JO. M. WEST CO. v. LEA BROS. & CO. et aI. (CIrcuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Feb. 24, 1899.) No. 300. Appeal'from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia. Henry & Williams, for appellant. Dawson & Seaton. for appellees., Questions certIfied to the supreme court of theUnlted States. See 19 Ct. 836i 91 Fed. 237.
HOOK v. MERCANTILE '.rRUST CO. OF NEW YORK et aI.(Circult Colirt of Appeals. Seventh Circuit. June 6, 1899.) No. 547. Appeal fr.om the Circuit Court of the UnIted States for the Southern DistrIct of Illinois. Thomas Worthington, for aPPellant. Bluford Wilson andP. B. Warren. for appellee. Before WOODS. JENKINS, and GRCSSCUP, CircuIt Judges. PER CURIAM. .Thls appeal is from the same decree and upon the sanie record, except the assignments of error; as the appeal of Mary B. Hook In case No. 495 (95 Fed. 41). In which a motion to d!smlssbas just been sustalneQ. A llke motion In this case for the same reasons must be allowed. The appeal Is therefore dismissed. GROSSCUP. Circuit Judge, by reason of sickness, did not share in the final consideration of this case. KING v. RITTER et at (CircuIt Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. May 3, 1899.) No. 307. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the DIstrict of West Virginia. M. F. Stiles. for appellant. Brown, JackllOD & Knight and Mr. Rucker. for appellees. Dismissed tor tailure to priJlt record, pursuant to the twenty-third rule.
DECISIONS.
1007
McDONALD v. WILLIA:\fS. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.) Questions of law certified to the supreme court of the United States. See 19 Sup. Ct. 743, 174 U. S. 397.
UNITED STATES v. ISELIN et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. .January 24, 1899.) No. 5(>. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Henry C. Platt, for appellant. Before WALLACE, LACO:\fBI<J, and SHIPMA);!. Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Affirmed, in open court, on authority of U. S. v. Stoddard, Haserick, Richards & Co. (decided in First circuit) 91 Fed. 1005. See 87 Fed. 194. U);!ITED STATES v. HARSHA. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.) Questions of law certified to the supreme court of the United States. See 19 Sup. Cf. 294, 172 U. S. 5G7; (j C. C. A. 178,56 Fed. 953; 92 Fed. 1023.
UNITED STATES v. HIRSCH et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. January 24, 1899.) No. 48. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern Distrlet of New York. Henry C. Platt, for appellant. Before WALLACE, LACOMB]<], and SHIPl\L·\N, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. in open court, on authority of U. S. v. Stoddard (decided in First circuit) 91 Fed. 1005. See 87 Fed. 194.
WM. ROGERS MFG. CO. v. ROGEnS. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. January 30, 1899.) No. 31. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United Statts for the Eastern District of New YOI'lL Charles E. Mitchell, for appellant. ,"Vm. C. Beecher, for appellee. Before WALLACE and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Order denying preliminary injunction is affirmed, with costs. 84 Fed. 639. WALLACE, Circuit Judge, concurring in the opinion of the court below, and Circuit Judge, dissenting.
WELSBACH LIGHT CO. v. NEW YOnK CHEMICAIJ HE FINING CO. I.Circuit Court, S. D. :\'ew York. .July 1!}, 18!J9.) Motion for preliminary injunction. John R. Bennett, for plaintiff. J. Aspinwall Hodge, Jr., for defendant. LAOOMBE, Circuit Judge. The Helouis process for treatment of lime crayons, which is relied upon as an anticipation in this case, seems quite different in object and result from that of the patent. Within the range of equivalents indicated by Judge Townsend in the Sunlight Incandescent Gas Lamp Case, 87 Fed. 221, the process of defendant is an infringement. Preliminary injunction accordingly. END OF CASES IN VOL.
95.