Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Denaro v. Maryland Baking Co.

50 F.2d 1074

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1931-06-17
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. The main contention of appellant on this appeal is that the court below in its opinion (Denaro v. Maryland Baking Co., 40 F.(2d) 513) erroneously applied the principles laid down in the opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Alexander Milburn Co. v. Davis-Bournonville Co., 270 U. S. 390, 46 S.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Denaro v. Maryland Baking Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
3 opinions
DENARO v. MARYLAND BAKING COMPANY,50 F.2d 1074(4th Cir. 1931)
James DENARO, Appellant, v. MARYLAND BAKING COMPANY, a Corporation,
Appellee.
No. 3151.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
June 17, 1931.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore; Morris A. Soper, Judge.
Jesse A. Holton, of Boston, Mass. (John E. Cross, of Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellant.

Albert E. Dieterich, of Washington, D.C. (Bowie Burke, of Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellee.
Before PARKER and NORTHCOTT, Circuit Judges, and ERNEST F. COCHRAN, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
The main contention of appellant on this appeal is that the court below in its opinion (Denaro v. Maryland Baking Co.,40 F.2d 513) erroneously applied the principles laid down in the opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Alexander Milburn Co. v. Davis-Bournonville Co.,270 U.S. 390,46 S. Ct. 324,70 L. Ed. 651. A careful consideration of the briefs and argument before us, and a study of the record, lead us to the conclusion that the judge below not only properly applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the Milburn Case, but also reached the correct conclusion on the merits. The judge below had the advantage of seeing machines used by the appellee in actual operation, and his conclusion should be given all the more weight because of that fact.

The questions raised by the counterclaim of defendant are not before us, as defendantPage 1075did not appeal; but, so far as the opinion of the judge below relates to the patents relied on by complainant and the alleged infringement thereof, same is adopted as the opinion of this court, and the decree below will accordingly be affirmed.Page 39