Skip to content


American Steel Foundries Vs. Whitehead - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number256 U.S. 40
AppellantAmerican Steel Foundries
RespondentWhitehead
Excerpt:
american steel foundries v. whitehead - 256 u.s. 40 (1921) u.s. supreme court american steel foundries v. whitehead, 256 u.s. 40 (1921) american steel foundries v. whitehead no. 131 argued january 12, 13, 1921 decided april 11, 1921 256 u.s. 40 certiorari to the court of appeals of the district of columbia syllabus decided on the authority of baldwin co. v. howard co., ante, 256 u. s. 35 . writ of certiorari to review 49 app.d.c. 16, 258 f. 160, dismissed. the case is stated in the opinion. page 256 u. s. 41 mr. justice day delivered the opinion of the court. in this case, a writ of certiorari was granted by this court on october 13, 1919, 250 u.s. 655. the case involves an.....
Judgment:
American Steel Foundries v. Whitehead - 256 U.S. 40 (1921)
U.S. Supreme Court American Steel Foundries v. Whitehead, 256 U.S. 40 (1921)

American Steel Foundries v. Whitehead

No. 131

Argued January 12, 13, 1921

Decided April 11, 1921

256 U.S. 40

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Syllabus

Decided on the authority of Baldwin Co. v. Howard Co., ante, 256 U. S. 35 .

Writ of certiorari to review 49 App.D.C. 16, 258 F. 160, dismissed.

The case is stated in the opinion.

Page 256 U. S. 41

MR. JUSTICE DAY delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this case, a writ of certiorari was granted by this Court on October 13, 1919, 250 U.S. 655. The case involves an application for the registration of a trademark, which was refused by the Examiner in the Patent Office, which decision was affirmed by the Commissioner of Patents, and his decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. 49 App.D.C. 16, 258 F. 160. This case is ruled by Nos. 139 and 113, just decided, ante, 256 U. S. 35 . As the writ of certiorari in this case, for the reasons stated in the opinion in No. 139, was improvidently granted, it follows that the cause must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and it is

So ordered.


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