Find court opinions that match your case.

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1826

Cassell v. Carrollton

[Feudal and Constitutional Law. Assignment bz the Husband, of a,Chose in Action, belonging to the Wife.] Henry Cassell, Administrator of Louisa Browning, v. Charles Carroll of Carrollton. The title and claim of Charles,Lord Baltimore, his h

24 U.S. 134 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1826

Doe ex dem. Governeur's Heirs v. Robertson

[Alien. Local Law.] Doe, ex dem. Governeur’s Heirs, against Robertson and Others. An alien may take, real property, by grant, whether from the State or a private citizen, and may hold the same until his title is devested by an inquest of of

24 U.S. 332 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1826

Doe ex dem. Patterson v. Winn

[Local Law.] Doe, ex dem. Patterson, against Winn and Others. Iii general, the validity of a patent for lands can only be impeached for causes anterior to its being issued, in a-Court of equity. But where the grant is absolutely void, as wh

24 U.S. 380 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1826

Chirac v. Reinicker

[Ejectment. Evidence. Phactice.J Chirac and Others against Reinicker. A counsel or attorney is not a competent witness to testify as to facts communicated to either by his client, in the course of the re- • lation subsisting between them, b

24 U.S. 280 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1825

Keplinger v. De Young

[Patent.] Keplinger v. De Young. A., having obtained a patent for a new and useful improvement, to. wit, a machine for making watch chains, brought an action, under the 3rd section of the Patent Act of 1800, c. 179. [xxvi.] for a violation

23 U.S. 358 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1825

M'Cormick v. Sullivant

[Chancery. Res Adjudicata. Lex Loci.] M'Cormick and Wife and others, Appellants, v. Sullivant and others, Respondents. The Courts of the United’ States ate Courts of limited, but not of inferior jurisdiction. If the jurisdiction be not alle

23 U.S. 192 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1825

Elmendorf v. Taylor

[Chancery. Limitation. Local Law.] Elmendorf, Appellant, v. Taylor and others, Respondents. Although the statutes of limitation do not apply, in terms, to Courts of Equity, yet the period of limitation which takes away a right of entry, or

23 U.S. 152 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1824

Ex parte Wood

[Patent. Practice.] Ex parte Wood & Brundage. Under the 10th section of the patent act of the' 21st of February, 1793, ch. 11. upon granting a rule, by the Judge of the District Court, upon the patentee, to show cause why process should not

22 U.S. 603 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1824

The Monte Allegre

TPrize. Judicial Sale.] The Monte Allegre, Tenant, Claimant. In judicial sales, there is no warranty, express or implied. Upon a sale by the Marshal, under an order of Cburt, no warranty is implied. Neither the Marshal, nor his agent, the a

22 U.S. 616 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1824

Kirk v. Smith ex dem. Penn

[Local Law.] Kirk and others, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Smith, ex. dem. Penn, Defendant in Error. The act of Pennsylvania, of 1779, “ for vesting the estates of the late proprietaries of Pennsylvania, in this Commonwealth,” did not con fiscat

22 U.S. 241 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1823

Johnson & Graham's Lessee v. McIntosh

*Johnson and Graham’s Lessee v. William McIntosh. Indian grants. A title to lands, under grant to private individuals, made by Indian tribes or nations north-west of the river Ohio,in 1773 and IMS, cannot be recognised in the courts of the

21 U.S. 543 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1822

Evans v. Hettich

(Common Law*) Evans v. Hettich. Ii is no objection to the competency of a witness in a patent cause that he is sued in another action tor an infringement of the same patent. The 6th section of the patent act of 1793, c. 156 which requires a

20 U.S. 453 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1822

Blunt's Lessee v. Smith

[Local Law.] Blunt’s Lessee v. Smith and Others. The decision of the Court below, granting or refusing a motion for a new trial, is not matter for which a writ of error lies to this Court. In Kentucky and Virginia the rule is, that a Court

20 U.S. 248 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1822

Brown v. Jackson

[Chancery.) Brown and Others v. Jackson. The decisions of the board of Commissioners tinder- the acts of Congress providing for the indemnification of claimants to public lands in the Mississippi Territory, (commonly called the Yazoo lands,

20 U.S. 218 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1822

Hoofnagle v. Anderson

{Local Law. Chancery.] Hoofnagle and Others v. Anderson. March 2d. A patent is a title from its date, and conclusive against all those whose rights did not commence previous to its emanation. Courts of equity consider an entry as the commen

20 U.S. 212 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1822

Bouldin v. Massie's Heirs

[Local Law.] Bouldin and Wife v. Massie’s Heirs and Others. The patent issued on a military warrant under the law of Virginia, is prima facie evidence that every prerequisite of thé law was complied with. The loss of a paper must be establi

20 U.S. 122 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1822

Green v. Watkins

[Common Law.] Green v. Watkins. In a Writ of right, the tenant cannot give in evidence the title of a third person, with which he has no privity, unless it he for the purpose of disproving the demandant’s seisin. Therefore, where the demand

20 U.S. 27 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1822

Miller v. Kerr

[Local Law. Chancery.] Miller and Others v. Kerr and Others. A warrant and survey authorize the proprietor of them to demand the legal title, but do not, in themselves, constitute a legal title: until the consummation of the title by a gran

20 U.S. 1 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1821

Preston's Heirs v. Bowmar

(Local Law.) Preston’s Heirs v. Bowmar. It is a universal rule, that course and distance yield to natural and ascertained objects. But where these objects are wanting', and the course and distance cannot be reconciled, there is no universal

19 U.S. 580 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1821

Prevost v. Gratz

(Chancery.) Prevost v. Gratz et al. Gratz et al. v. Prevost. To establish the existence of a trust, the onus probandili'es on the party who alleges it. In general, length of time is no bar to a trust clearly established to have once existed

19 U.S. 481 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Reversed Intellectual Property 1820

Blake v. Doherty

(Locai, Law.) Blake et al. v. Doherty et al. It is essential to the validity of a grant, that the thing granted should be so described as to be capable of iieing distinguished from other things of the same kind. But it is not necessary that

18 U.S. 359 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1819

Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward

(CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.) The Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward. The charter granted by the British crown to the trustees of Dartmouth ' College, in New-Hampshire, in the year 1769, is a contract within the meaning of that clause of the

17 U.S. 518 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Remanded Intellectual Property 1819

M'Arthur v. Browder

(local law.) M‘Arthur v. Browder. The rule which prevails in Kentucky and' Ohio, as to land titles, is, that, at law, the patent is the foundation of title, and neither party can bring his entry, before the Court: Rut a junior patentee, cla

17 U.S. 488 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Remanded Intellectual Property 1819

M'Iver's Lessee v. Walker

(local law.) M'Iver’s Lessee v. Walker et al. If, there is nothing in a patent to control the call for course and distance, the land must be bounded by the courses and distances of . the patent, according to the magnetic meridian. ' But it

17 U.S. 444 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion