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.
Alfred F. MASURY and August H. Leipert, Appellants, v. Harvey W. BELL, Appellee, 1925 — 6 F.2d 709 · caselaw · US
General
Alfred F. MASURY and August H. Leipert, Appellants, v. Harvey W. BELL, Appellee
6 F.2d 709·United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit·1925
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
Alfred F. MASURY and August H. Leipert, Appellants, v. Harvey W. BELL, Appellee.
(Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.
Submitted May 13, 1925.
Decided June 1, 1925.)
No. 1755.
W. A. Redding and W. B. Greeley, both of New York City, and H. H. Semmes, of Washington, D. C., for appellants.
J. H. Milans and C. T. Milans, both of Washington, D. C., and Albert C. Nolte, of New York City (Edmund Quincy Moses, of New York City, on the brief), for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
[MAJORITY — ROBB, Associate Justice.]
ROBB, Associate Justice.
The invention here is closely related to that involved in the preceding appeal, No. 1754, just decided. — App. D. C. —, 6 F.(2d) 708. The counts of this interference were originally in the other, but-on motion of the senior party the interference was dissolved as to them, and the junior parties filed another application, in which these claims were made. Since the two cases have been submitted on a single record, the conclusion reached in the preceding appeal will be controlling here, as below, and the decision therefore is affirmed.
Affirmed.