CASES CITED. [Decisions of the State Courts are indicated by a section mark (§); of the United States District Courts by the letter ; of the United States Circuit Courts by the letter ; of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia by one star (*); of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals by the letter ; and of the Supreme Court of the United States by two stars (**).] A. Page. ** Abercrombie et al. v. Baldwin et al., 245 U. S., 198. d Acetylene Gas Case, 192 Fed. Rep., 321. Acker, Merrall & Condit Company. Ex parte, C. D., 1911, 54; 165 O. G., 473 * Adams v. Murphy, 18 App. D. C., 172_ 44, 266 243 52 171 Adams-Jewell Co., 120 MS. Dec., 374_. Aetna Ins. Co. v. Commonwealth, 106 Ky., 864. Ajax Metal Co. v. Brady Brass Co., 155 Fed. Rep., 409. Alaska Gold Mining Co. v. Keating, 116 Fed. Rep., 561. 49 375 18, 227 149 * Allen et al. v. United States, 22 App. D. C., 271.. D Alvord v. Smith & Watson Iron Works, 216 Fed. Rep., 150 4 American Automotoneer Co. v. Porter, 232 Fed. Rep., 456 73 278 18, 19, 227 43, 44 American Casting Machine Co. v. Pittsburgh Coal Washer Co., 237 Fed. 56 e American Fibre Chamois Co. v. DeLee et al., 67 Fed. Rep., 329_ 84 347 American Roll Paper Co. v. Weston, 45 Fed. Rep., 686-- 20 * American Stove Co. v. Detroit Stove Works, 31 App. D. C., 304– Ams. Ex parte, C. D., 1906, 424; 125 O. G., 347_. * Ams. In re, 29 App. D. C., 91_-. 202 43 43 Anderson v. Collins, 122 Fed. Rep., 451. 18, 227, 229 Aspegren and Company. Ex parte, C. D., 1902, 265; 100 O. G., 684__ Baker & Co., Walter v. Delapenha, 160 Fed. Rep., 746_. 376 Baldwin v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., (Justrite Mfg. Co.,) 227 Fed. 330 'Baldwin v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. (Justrite Mfg. Co.,), 228 Fed. Rep., 895_. 330 Baldwin v. Grier Bros. Co., 210 Fed. Rep., 560Baldwin et al. v. Grier Bros. Co., 215 Fed. Rep., 735_. "Baldwin et al. v. Grier Bros. Co., 219 Fed. Rep., 735_. Ball. Ex parte, C. D., 1902, 102; 98 O. G., 2366– ** Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 108 U. S., 566-- 330 330 331, 334 73 217 IX *Barclay v. Schuler, 41 App. D. C., 250___ Page. 142 d Barnes Automatic Sprinkler Co. v. Walworth Mfg. Co., 60 Fed. Rep., 605-- 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 228 65 311 148 *Barratt v. Duell, Commissioner of Patents, 14 App. D. C., 255_. * Barrett Mfg. Co. In re, 37 App. D. C., 111. ** Bates v. Coe, 98 U. S., 31. ** Bauer, v. O'Donnell, 229 U. S., 1----. 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 227, 229, 250 § Bear Lithia Springs Co. v. Great Bear Spring Co., 71 N. J. Eq., 595_ § Bear Lithia Springs Co. v. Great Bear Spring Co., 72 N. J. Eq., 871. * Beckwith. In re estate of P. D., 48 App. D. C., 110_ ** Belknap v. Schild, 161 U. S., ** Bement v. National Harrow Company, 186 U. S., 70__. * Beswick. In re, 16 App. D. C., 345_ Bevin Bros. Mfg. Co. v. Starr, etc., 114 Fed. Rep., 362. ** Bierce, L'd., Wm. W., v. Hutchins, 205 U. S., 340_ 349, 350 203 203 62 340 206, 374 160 51 245 245 137 79, 80 330 80 278 Black Betsy Coal & Mining Company . The W. J. Hamilton Coal Com d Bleser v. Baldwin, 199 Fed. Rep., 133_. Bloomington. Ex parte, C. D., 1905, 543; 119 O. G., 2235_ d Blount v. Société Anonyme, etc., 53 Fed. Rep., 98_. * Bluthenthal et al v. Bigbee Bros. & Co., 33 App. D. C., 209. ** Bobbs-Merrill Company v. Straus, 210 U. S., 339_ d 80, 204 348, 349 a Borden Ice Cream Co. v. Borden's Condensed Milk Co., 201 Fed. Rep., 510____ * Bourn v. Hill, Jr., 27 App. D. C., 291. ** Brown v. Guild, 23 Wall., 181. ** Brown v. Piper, 91 U. S., 37 **Brown Chemical Co. v. Meyer, 139 U. S., 540 Budd Co. v. New England Co., 240 Fed. Rep., 415_ ** Butterworth v. Hoe, 112 U. S., 50. Byron Weston Company. Ex parte, C. D., 1902, 149; 99 O. G., 861_ C. 128, 171 356 19, 23 279 183 231 98, 314 52 ** Canal Company v. Clark, 13 Wall., 311. 53, 370, 374, 375 Canda v. Michigan Co., 124 Fed. Rep., 486. 267 * Canton Culvert & Silo Co. v. Consolidated Car Heating Co., 44 App. D. C., 491. 135 * Carlin v. Goldberg, 45 App. D. C., 540 136 ** Carnegie v. Cambria, 185 U. S., 403_. 273 Carr v. Schollhorn v. Warren, etc., 104 MS. Dec., 449. 75 Case v. Quirk, C. D., 1908, 221; 136 O. G., 1531_ 80 § Cavanagh v. Wilson, 70 N. Y., 177. Chadwick v. Covell, 151 Mass., 190. ** Chicago & N. W. Railroad Co. v. Sayles, 97 U. S., 554 Page. Clemens v. Belford, 14 Fed. Rep., 728_ 137 d Cleveland Co. v. Detroit Co., 131 Fed. Rep., 853_. Collom v. Thurman, C. D., 1907, 330; 131 O. G., 359. ** Columbia Mill Company v. Alcorn, 150 U. S., 460"Computing Co. v. Standard Co., 195 Fed. Rep., 508_ 264 124 370, 376 228 4 Consolidated Rubber Tire Co. v. Diamond Rubber Co., 157 Fed. Rep., 677 278 Coombs Milling Company v. Barber Milling Company, C. D., 1911, 27; 163 O. G., 727--- 58 31 253 ** Corn Planter Patent Case, 23 Wall., 181_--- "Corona Chemical Company v. Latimer Chemical Co., 240 Fed. Rep., 423_ * Cosper v. Gold, 34 App. D. C., 194_ * Cosper v. Gold and Gold, 36 App. D. C., 302. 136, 147, 166 38, 41, 265 ** Cramp & Sons, Co., William v. Curtis Turbine Co., 234 U. S., 755---- 337 337, 356 ** Cramp & Sons Company, William, v. International Curtis Marine Turbine Co., 246 U. S., 28. 356 Cravenette Co., The, v. Rogers & Thompson, 102 MS. Dec., 127- 67, 68, 69, 70, 71 ** Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U. S., 351_. 204 ** Crozier v. Krupp, 224 U. S., 290_ 336, 340, 342, 354, 356 d 4 Curtis Turbine Co. v. Wm. Cramp & Sons, 202 Fed. Rep., 932_. Curtis Turbine Co. v. Wm. Cramp & Sons Co., 211 Fed. Rep., 124_. *Cutler v. Leonard, 31 App. D. C., 297_. 337 337 130 D. d D'Arcy v. Staples & Hanford Co., 161 Fed. Rep., 733. ** Dable Grain Shovel Co. v. Flint, 137 U. S., 41. ** Daniels v. Tearney, 102 U. S., 415_. d De Jonge & Co. v. Breuker & Kessler Co., 182 Fed. Rep., 150. De Voe Snuff Co. v. Wolff, 206 Fed. Rep., 420. d Denton et al. v. Fulda, 225 Fed. Rep., 537_. ** Diamond Co. v. Consolidated Co., 220 U. S., 428_ 237 252 206 50, 67 301 50, 261, 290 Diamond Drill Co. v. Kelley Bros., 120 Fed. Rep., 282- Drewson v. Hartje Mfg. Co., 131 Fed. Rep., 734--- 16, 19, 23, 25, 28, 29, 227, 228 Eddleblute. Ex parte, C. D., 1890, 124; 52 O. G., 751. 198, 199 18, 227 18, 19, 23, 25 * Edison v. Thomas A. Edison, Jr., Chemical Co., 128 Fed. Rep., 1013___. 206 * Einstein v. Sawhill, 2 App. D. C., 10__. c Eiseman v. Schiffer, 157 Fed. Rep., 473_. 206 151 Page. d Electric Controller & S. Co. v. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co., 171 * Electro Steel Co. v. Lindenberg Steel Co., 43 App. D. C., 270_. **Elizabeth v. Pavement Co., 97 U. S., 126. * Engel v. Sinclair, 34 App. D. C., 212. Erne and Bridges. Ex parte, C. D., 1897, 197; 81 O. G., 2247– Essor Company. Ex parte, 122 MS. Dec., 366_ ** Ewing v. United States er rel. Fowler, 244 U. S., 1. *Excelsior Shoe Co. In re, 40 App. D. C., 480_ 182 115, 183, 185, 206 247, 250 298 56 83 97, 211, 213 180 F. Fare Register Co. v. Ohmer, 238 Fed. Rep., 182. 230 37 2 43 * Fischbeck Soap Co. v. Kleeno Mfg. Co., 44 App. D. C., 6. Fishel Co. Ex parte The, 120 MS. Dec., 229_ *Flora v. Powrie, 23 App. D. C., 195_ d Florence Mfg. Co. v. Dowd, 178 Fed. Rep., 73_ **Florsheim v. Schilling, 137 U. S., 64__ Fraim Co. v. Reading Co., C. D., 1909, 29; 140 O. G., 255_. 79 18, 227 General Electric Co. v. Allis-Chalmers Co., 190 Fed. Rep., 165______ 18, 19, 227 d General Electric Co. v. Cooper Hewitt Electric Co., 249 Fed. Rep., 69--- 268 d General Electric Company v. Steinberger, 214 Fed. Rep., 784Gentry. Ex parte, C. D., 1888, 115; 44 O. G., 822__ 314 1 Georgia v. Bilfinger et al., 129 Fed. Rep., 131. 71 Germ Milling Company, Limited, v. Robinson, 3 Rep. Pat. Cas., 399 250 b Globe Knitting works v. Segal et al., 239 Fed. Rep., 322. 255 d Goessling Box Co. v. Gumb, et al., 241 Fed. Rep., 674_ 18 * Gold. In re, 38 App. D. C., 544.... 312 * Gold. In re, 45 App. D. C., 294_ Gold v. Gold, 181 Fed. Rep., 544. d Gold v. Gold, 187 Fed. Rep., 273– * Gold v. Gold, 34 App. D. C., 229_ d Gold and Gold Car Heating & Lighting Company v. Newton, Commissioner of Patents, 254 Fed. Rep., 824. *Goodrich Drug Co. v. Cassada Mfg. Co., 46 App. D. C., 146__ 312 311 311 212, 213, 311 115, 316 158 Gordon. Ex parte, C. D., 1904, 20; 108 O. G., 561. ** Gordon. Ex parte, 104 U. S., 515__. "Gorham Mfg. Co. v. Weintraub, 196 Fed. Rep., 957- d Gould & Eberhardt v. Cincinnati Shaper Co., 194 Fed. Rep., 680. * Great Bear Spring Co. v. Bear Lithia Springs Co., 45 App. D. C., 305_ * Great Bear Spring Company v. Bear Lithia Springs Co., 47 App. D. C., 434 * Greenwood v. Dover, 194 Fed. Rep., 91–. **Gregory, Petitioner. In re, 219 U. S., 210_. ** Grier v. Wilt, 120 U. S., 412_‒‒‒ Grinnell Washing Machine Co. v. Woodrow et al., 209 Fed. Rep., 121. H. **Hailes v. Van Wormer, 20 Wall., 353 ** Hanover Milling Co. v. Metcalf, 240 U. S., 403_. Hardison v. Brinkman, 156 Fed. Rep., 962 ** Harley v. United States, 198 U. S., 229. Page. 56 102 376 237 18, 227 203 205 314 103 279 364 337 368 374, 376, 378 280 340 142 251, 305, 348, 350 204 114 243, 266 43 19, 23, 24, 25, 27, 30, 229 118 264 18, 22, 227, 229 121 237 20, 21 156 169 44, 45 199 375 * Henderson v. Gilpin, 39 App. D. C., 428 ** Henry v. Dick, 224 U. S., 1. *Herbst. In re, 44 App. D. C., 203 * Hercules Powder Company. In re, 46 App. D. C., 52---. Herman v. Youngstown Car Mfg. Co., 191 Fed. Rep., 579– d * Heroult. In re, 29 App. D. C., 42-- Hillard v. Fisher Co., 159 Fed. Rep., 439. *Hisey v. Peters, 6 App. D. C., 68. ** Hobbs v. Beach, 180 U. S., 383. a Horton Co. v. White Lily Co., 213 Fed. Rep., 471 *Howard v. Bowes, 31 App. D. C., 619 ** Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U. S., 164_. Howes v. McNeal, 4 Fed. Rep., 151. * Huebel v. Bernard, 15 App. D. C., 510 * Huff v. Gulick, 38 App. D. C., 334 Hulbert. Ex parte, C. D., 1893, 74; 63 O. G., 1687__ * Hunt v. McCaslin, 10 App. D. C., 527 § Hunt v. Warnicke's Heirs, 3 Ky., Hardin, 61--- I. Individual Drinking Cup Co. et al v. Public Service Co., 226 Fed. Rep., 465 304, 308 D * Individual Drinking Cup Co. et al v. Public Service Co., 237 Fed. Rep., 400 b Individual Drinking Cup Co. et al v. Public Service Co., 234 Fed. Rep., 653- 304 304 Interboro Brewing Co., 112 MS. Dec., 114_. 73 International Curtis Marine Turbine Co. v. Wm. Cramp & Sons Co., 176 337 b International Curtis Marine Turbine Co. et al. v. William Cramp & Sons Ship & Engine Building Co., 232 Fed. Rep., 166__ 338 |