1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.
  4. 8 F.Supp.
  5. 8 F.Supp. 658 (1932)
 

INGERSOLL v. BETHLEMEM STEEL CO.

Nos. 4645, 4647, 4649.

8 F.Supp. 658 (1932)

INGERSOLL et al. v. BETHLEHEM STEEL CO. FRANKLIN RY. SUPPLY CO. v. SAME. LOCOMOTIVE BOOSTER CO. et al. v. SAME.

District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

October 13, 1932.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Edward H. Davis, Harvey L. Lechner, and Paul Synnestvedt, all of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiffs.

Charles Neave and Clarence D. Kerr, both of New York City, and Howson & Howson, of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

KIRKPATRICK, District Judge.

There are ten patents in suit, all relating to an auxiliary steam engine, commonly called a "booster," designed to furnish additional driving power, when required, to a steam locomotive. For convenience they may be divided into two groups. Four patents, constituting the first group, have to do principally with the means by which the engineer controls the operation of the booster, and may be called control patents. The remaining six patents...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases