IP
HOLMES, BOOTH & HAYDENS v. McGILL
108 F. 987·United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·1901
Before WALLACE and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges.
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
HOLMES, BOOTH & HAYDENS v. McGILL.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
April 25, 1901.)
No. 57.
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. This is an application of the plaintiff in error for leave to move in the circuit court of the United States for the Southern district of New York for a new trial of the cause, so far forth as it relates to the question of the true title and ownership of the process patent dated December 3, 1889, and numbered 41(5,510, upon the ground of newly-discovered evidence.
For former opinion of this court, see 108 Fed. 238.
Before WALLACE and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
The newly-discovered evidence, which is based upon tlie letter of Mr. Wayland of October 4, 1889, to tlie defendant in error (of the existence of which we have no doubt), is not sufficient to induce this court to grant the application, in view of the history of the process patent as disclosed in the record. The letter does not substantially assist to change the conclusion that the process patent for the invention of Shipley was always owned by McGill as his own property. The application is denied.