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.
TOWNSEND ESTATES, Inc., et al., Appellants, v. KERNER INCINERATOR CO., Appellee, 1928 — 27 F.2d 606 · caselaw · US
Administrative
TOWNSEND ESTATES, Inc., et al., Appellants, v. KERNER INCINERATOR CO., Appellee
27 F.2d 606·United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·1928
Before DENISON, MACK, and MOORMAN, 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
TOWNSEND ESTATES, Inc., et al., Appellants, v. KERNER INCINERATOR CO., Appellee.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
July 6, 1928.
No. 4963.
Appeal from the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio; D. C. Westenhaver, Judge.
Harry Frease, of Canton, Ohio, for appellants.
Laurence A. Janney, of Chicago, Ill. (Emery, Booth, Janney & Yamey, and A. Trevor Jones, all of Chicago, Ill., on the brief), for appellee.
Before DENISON, MACK, and MOORMAN, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Decree appealed from [27 F.(2d) 599] affirmed. Plaintiffs invention is embodied in an apparatus to carry out his novel concept of a miscellaneous collection of garbage and refuse being air-dried and then self-consumed by surface burning. His structure was differentiated from prior ones by an air by-pass, which at all times assisted in maintaining the air-drying current and deflected some of it through or over the top part of the accumulations. Kenner’s present testimony that his intent in permitting the use of his invention more than two years before application for the patent was for experimental purposes which could be accomplished only during the several seasons of the year and under conditions of complete apartment occupancy, while subject to careful scrutiny, states an entirely natural if not inevitable conclusion as to such intent. It is consistent with all the evidence and suffices to overcome initial doubts.
Appellant’s further contentions are answered in Judge WestenhavePs memorandum opinions of January 27, 1926, and January 19, 1927, with which we fully agree.