The order should be modified by inserting in the proper place in the proceedings before the referee of March 16, 1895, the following questions and answers: “Q. Were they laid under either of the original patents? A. No, sir. Q. Were they laid under either of the reissued patents? A. No, sir.” And by inserting in the case in the proceedings had on ¿he 5th of December, 1895, the following: “Q. Were they laid under either of the reissued patents? A. No, sir. By Mr. Hassett: Q. Do you wish to make any change in your answer to I that question? A. I do. I wish to strike out the answer, ‘No, sir,’ and to say that they were laid under one of the reissued patents.” The order, as thus modified, should be affirmed, without costs to either party.
46 N.Y.S. 1089
AVERELL, Respondent, v. BARBER et al., Appellants.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
August 4, 1897.)
Action by William W. Averell against Amsi L. Barber and others. W. W. Niles, for appellants. E. Hassett, for respondent.
Averell v. Barber
46 N.Y.S. 1089
Case Details
46 N.Y.S. 1089
References
Nothing yet... Still searching!
Nothing yet... Still searching!