Case Name: AMERICAN ELECTRIC RABBIT RACING ASSOCIATION, Inc., New Orleans Kennel Club, Inc., G. W. Heintz, I. B. Rennyson, Charles A. Cody, Jr., and Vic J. Passera, Appellants, v. Owen P. SMITH (Hannah M. Smith, Administratrix of the Estate of Owen P. Smith, Deceased), Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1928-05-28
Citations: 26 F.2d 1016
Docket Number: No. 5189
Parties: AMERICAN ELECTRIC RABBIT RACING ASSOCIATION, Inc., New Orleans Kennel Club, Inc., G. W. Heintz, I. B. Rennyson, Charles A. Cody, Jr., and Vic J. Passera, Appellants, v. Owen P. SMITH (Hannah M. Smith, Administratrix of the Estate of Owen P. Smith, Deceased), Appellee.
Judges: Before WALKER, BRYAN, and FOSTER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 26
Pages: 1016–1016

Head Matter:
AMERICAN ELECTRIC RABBIT RACING ASSOCIATION, Inc., New Orleans Kennel Club, Inc., G. W. Heintz, I. B. Rennyson, Charles A. Cody, Jr., and Vic J. Passera, Appellants, v. Owen P. SMITH (Hannah M. Smith, Administratrix of the Estate of Owen P. Smith, Deceased), Appellee.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 28, 1928.
Rehearing Denied July 10, 1928.
No. 5189.
Paul Bake well, of St. Louis, Mo., and Nat W. Bond, of New Orleans, La. (Haight, Adcock, Haight & Harris, of Chicago, Ill., and W. J. Gex, of Bay St. Louis, Miss., on the brief), for appellants,
E. Howard McCaleb, of New Orleans, La. (John E. Sater, of Columbus, Ohio, and C. Arthur Anderson, of St. Lords, Mo., on the brief), for appellee.
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and FOSTER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
POSTER, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from an interlocutory decree holding that United States letters patent Nos. 1,379,-224, 1,507,440, and 1,507,439, granted to Owen P. Smith for improvements in certain paraphernalia used for dog racing, were infringed by defendants, granting an injunction and referring the case to a master for an accounting.
The patents in suit and the infringing devices are fully described in the opinion of the District Court (21 F.[2d] 366), and the facts need not be repeated. We agree with the conclusions of the District Court.
Affirmed,