Skip to content


Moore Vs. U S Ex Rel Newcomb Motor Co - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number216 U.S. 608
AppellantMoore
RespondentU S Ex Rel Newcomb Motor Co
Excerpt:
..... 216 u.s. 608 edward b. moore, commissioner of patents, plaintiff in error, v. united states of america ex rel. newcomb motor company. no. 115. supreme court of the united states march 7, 1910 messrs. frederick p. fish, melville church, and albert g. davis for plaintiff in error. messrs. charles h. duell, robert n. kenyon, and walter f. rogers for defendant in error. per curiam: the writ of error is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. frasch v. moore, 211 u.s. 1 , 53 l. ed. 65, 29 sup. ct. rep. 6; rousseau v. brown, 21 app. d. c. 73, 80; johnson v. mueser, 212 u.s. 284, 53 l. ed. 515, 29 sup. ct. rep. 390; e. c. atkins & co. v. moore, 212 u.s. 285 , 53 l. ed. 515, 29 sup. ct. rep. 390; gaines v. knecht, 212 u.s. 561, 53 l. ed......
Judgment:
MOORE v. U S EX REL NEWCOMB MOTOR CO - 216 U.S. 608 (1910)
U.S. Supreme Court MOORE v. U S EX REL NEWCOMB MOTOR CO, 216 U.S. 608 (1910)

216 U.S. 608

EDWARD B. MOORE, Commissioner of Patents, Plaintiff in Error,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. NEWCOMB MOTOR COMPANY.
No. 115.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 7, 1910

Messrs. Frederick P. Fish, Melville Church, and Albert G. Davis for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Charles H. Duell, Robert N. Kenyon, and Walter F. Rogers for defendant in error.

Per Curiam: The Writ of Error is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Frasch v. Moore, 211 U.S. 1 , 53 L. ed. 65, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 6; Rousseau v. Brown, 21 App. D. C. 73, 80; Johnson v. Mueser, 212 U.S. 284, 53 L. ed. 515, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 390; E. C. Atkins & Co. v. Moore, 212 U.S. 285 , 53 L. ed. 515, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 390; Gaines v. Knecht, 212 U.S. 561, 53 L. ed. 652, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 688; Gaines v. Knecht, 27 App. D. C. 530, 532; United States ex rel. Taylor v. Taft, 203 U.S. 461 , 51 L. ed. 269, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 148; United States v. Lynch, 137 U.S. 280 , 34 L. ed. 700, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 114; Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Hopkins, 130 U.S. 210, 226 , 32 S. L. ed. 908, 914, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 503. The application for Certiorari is also denied.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //