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.
Corporations
C. B. COTTRELL & SONS COMPANY, Appellant, v. CLAYBOURN PROCESS CORPORATION, Appellee
24 F.2d 1014·United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh 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
C. B. COTTRELL & SONS COMPANY, Appellant, v. CLAYBOURN PROCESS CORPORATION, Appellee.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
March 29, 1928.
No. 3896.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
Decree (17 P.[2d] 279) affirmed.
E. Clarkson Seward, of New York City, for appellant.
Louis Quarles, of Milwaukee, Wis., for appellee.
Before EVANS, PAGE, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURLAM.]
PER CURLAM.
Plaintiff brought suit on two patents the validity and infringement of which defendant contested. The District Court found for the defendant and dismissed the suit for want of equity. In disposing of the suit, Judge Geiger filed an opinion reported in (D. C.) 17 F.(2d) 279, which very fully discusses the validity of the patents. We have studied it thoroughly in the light of the exhaustive brief which appellant has filed, and we are convinced that the District Court reached the correct conclusion. The opinion of the District Court is so complete, and the reasons for the conclusion are so well stated, that further discussion of the merits by this court would be unjustifiable.
The decree is affirmed.