Case ID: f_205/html/0904-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BYRD MFG. CO. et al. v. COLMAN et al.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    June 11, 1913.)
    No. 1,153.
    Patents (§ 328) — Validity and Infringement — Knotting Machine.
    The Colman patents, No. 672,636 and No. 755,110, for a knotting machine designed, for tying knots in thread as it runs off the bobbin onto the spool in cotton mills, were not anticipated and disclose invention, the machine being of a primary character and great utility; also hold infringed.
    Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh; Henry G. Connor, Judge.
    Suit in equity by Howard D. Colman, Luther L. Miller, and Harry A. Severson, partners trading as the Barber-Colman Company, against the Byrd Manufacturing Company, the Harris Machinery Company, Britton E. Byrd, and John H. Harris. Decree for complainants, and defendants appeal.
    Affirmed.
    For opinion below, see 200 Fed. 59.
    See, also, 205 Fed. 905.
    Charles E. Brock, of Washington, D. C., and Parker W. Page, of New York City (J. H. Pou, of Raleigh, N. C.,.and Kerr, Page, Cooper & Hayward, of New York City, on the brief), for appellants.
    Lincoln B. Smith, of Chicago, Ill., and Melville Church, of Washington, D. C. (Luther L. M-iller, of Chicago, Ill., on the brief), for appellees.
    
      Before PRITCHARD, Circuit Judge, and DAYTON and SMITH, District Judges.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PER CURIAM.

A careful consideration of the facts of this case and the law bearing upon the same impels us to the conclusion that the ruling of the lower court as respects the questions involved therein was eminently proper.

The opinion filed in the court below (200 Fed. 59), we think properly disposes of the questions at issue. We therefore adopt the same as the opinion of this court.

Therefore the decree of the lower court is affirmed