Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
ALLIS-CHALMERS MANUFACTURING CO., Appellant, v. Joseph E. KENNEDY, Appellee, 1928 — 25 F.2d 1017 · caselaw · US
IP
ALLIS-CHALMERS MANUFACTURING CO., Appellant, v. Joseph E. KENNEDY, Appellee
25 F.2d 1017·United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·1928
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
ALLIS-CHALMERS MANUFACTURING CO., Appellant, v. Joseph E. KENNEDY, Appellee.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
April 30, 1928.
No. 3740.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Delaware; Hugh M. Morris, Judge.
Decree (21 F.[2d] 530) affirmed.
Clifton V. Edwards, of New York City, George F. De Wein, of Milwaukee, Wis., and William G. Mahaffy, of Wilmington, Del., for appellant.
Thomas Howe, of New York City, and E. E. Berl, of Wilmington, Del., for appellee.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.]
BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
In the court below Kennedy, the owner of patent No. 1,436,338, granted November 21, 1922, to Charles L. Carman for a crusher, charged the Allis-Chalmers Company with infringement thereof in a gyratory stone crusher of its make. In a comprehensive opinion that court held the patent valid and infringed. On appeal from a decree so holding we find ourselves in entire accord with that opinion, only adding that we find Carman’s device increased output as much as four to one, and avoided the wear, tear, and rapid depreciation incident to the use of prior crushers.
In view of the full and satisfactory discussion the questions in the ease have already had at the hands of the court below, we limit ourselves to now stating the decree is affirmed.