for the costs of the appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, and $2,026.06, being the costs, as taxed, of appeal to the Court of Appeal awarded to the defendant Campbell; and the said sum of $1,053.53 covered $500 as security for the costs of the appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, and $553.53, being the costs, as taxed, of appeal to the Court of Appeal awarded to the defendant Smith. The defendants moved to quash the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
C. E. Gregory K.C. for the defendant Smith.
W. D. Herridge for the defendant Campbell.
S. Clark for the plaintiff.
The motions were heard on October 2, 1928, and on October 3, 1928, the Court orally gave judgment granting them, being of the opinion that there was no jurisdiction, as there were separate judgments against each defendant, and each of those judgments was under the appealable amount. The appeal was quashed with costs, limited, however, to those of a motion to affirm jurisdiction unsuccessfully made in chambers.
Solicitors for the appellant: Tingley & Malone.
Solicitor for the respondent Campbell: G. H. Barr. Solicitor for the respondent Smith: W. P. Cumming. DETROIT RUBBER PRODUCTS,
REPUBLIC
RUBBER
COMPANY
APPEAL from the judgment of the Exchequer Court of Canada (Audette J.) (1) dismissing the plaintiff's action for infringement of its patent (for certain " new and useful improvements in channel rubber runways for slidable windows "), on the ground of invalidity of the patent.
The appeal was heard on March 27 and 28, 1928, and on
April 24, 1928, the Court delivered judgment (written reasons being given by Smith J., with whom the other members of the Court concurred) dismissing the appeal with costs, the ground of the decision being that the patent was invalid, because of lack of invention sufficient to form the basis of a patent, and because, in any event, there had been anticipation of every feature of the device in question.
Appeal dismissed with costs.
W. D. Herridge for the appellant.
0. M. Biggar K.C. and R. S. Smart K.C. for the respondent.
THE NIEBLO MFG. INC. v. REID
APPEAL by the plaintiff from the judgment of the Exchequer Court of Canada (Audette J.) (1), dismissing its action for alleged infringement of its patent (for certain new and useful improvements in golfing tees) on the ground that the patent was invalid because of want of patentable invention.
At the conclusion of the argument for the appellant, and without calling on counsel for the respondent, the Court orally delivered judgment, dismissing the appeal with costs, on the ground that there was no patentable invention.
Appeal dismissed with costs.
R. S. Cassels K.C. for the appellant.
Russel S. Smart K.C. for the respondent.
INCORPORATED
APPEALS by the defendant Wettlaufer Brothers Limited and by the plaintiff from the judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario (1). The plaintiff sued the defendants, Wettlaufer Bros., Ltd. and Snow Motors Inc., for the price of goods sold and delivered.
The decisions turned upon findings of fact. At the trial Riddell J. held, upon the evidence, that, as to most of the items, the defendant Snow Motors Inc. was liable as being in fact the purchaser of the goods, and the plaintiff recovered judgment against it for $1,973.71, and against the defendant Wettlaufer Bros. Ltd., in respect of certain items, for $224.79, and against the defendants for costs. The defendant Snow Motors Inc. appealed from that judgment, and the plaintiff also appealed, claiming that it was entitled to judgment against the defendant Wettlaufer Bros. Ltd. for $2,198.50, and, in the event of success of the appeal of the defendant Snow Motors Inc., it was entitled to judgment against Wettlaufer Bros. Ltd. for $2,198.50.
The Appellate Division (1) allowed the appeal of the defendant Snow Motors Inc., and also allowed the plaintiff's appeal, and directed that the action be dismissed as against the defendant Snow Motors Inc. and that the plaintiff recover from the defendant Wettlaufer Bros. Ltd., the sum of $2,198.50, and that the defendant Snow Motors Inc. and the plaintiff each recover its costs of action from the defendant Wettlaufer Bros. Ltd., and that the plaintiff recover from the defendant Wettlaufer Bros. Ltd. its costs of appeal, and that the defendant Snow Motors Inc. recover from the defendant Wettlaufer Bros. Ltd. its costs of appeal. The defendant Wettlaufer Bros. Ltd. appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, and the plaintiff also appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada against the judgment of the Appellate Division in so far as it relieved the defendant Snow Motors Inc.
from its liability to the plaintiff adjudged by the trial judge. Leave to appeal was granted to the appellants by the Appellate Division.
After hearing argument by counsel for all parties, judgment was reserved, and on the following day the Court orally delivered judgment allowing both appeals with costs.
Appeals allowed with costs.
R. S. Robertson K.C. for the defendant Wettlaufer
Brothers Limited.
Gordon Waldron K.C. for the plaintiff.
L. Ramsey for the defendant Snow Motors Incorporated.