Find court opinions that match your case.

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1819

M'Culloch v. Maryland

(CONSTITUTIONAL LAW) M'Culloch v. The State of Maryland et al. Congress has power to incorporate a Bank. The government of the Union is a government of the People; it emanates from them; its powers ate granted by them; and are to he exercis

17 U.S. 316 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1819

Barr v. Gratz's heirs

(COMMON LAW.) Barr v. Gratz’s heirs. -A patent issued on the 18lh November; 1784, for 1,000 acres of land, in Kentucky, to J. C., who had previously, In July, 1784, covenanted to convey the same to M. G., the ancestor of the lessor of the p

17 U.S. 213 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Reversed Intellectual Property 1818

Evans v. Eaton

(common law.) Evans v. Eaton. Under life fi.tb.section of the patent law of 1793, ch; 156. the defend,ant pleaded the general issue, and. gave notice that tie woulq prove at Jim'trial, that the machine, for l he use of which, without licens

16 U.S. 454 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1818

Brown v. Jackson

[Common Law.) Brown v. Jackson. Although the grantees in a deed executed after, but recorded' Before, another conveyance of the same land, being bond fide purchasers without notice, are by law deemed to possess the better titleyet where L.

16 U.S. 449 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1818

Robinson v. Campbell

(constitutional .AND Xocal law.) Robinson v. Campbell. the compact of Í802, settling the boundary lina'between Virginia trait Tennessee, and the laws made in pursuance thereof, it is declared that •all claims and titles to lands derived, fr

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

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1818

Jackson ex dem. People v. Clarke

(common LAW ) Jackson, ex dem. The People of the State of New-York, v. Clarke. G. C., born in the colony of New-York, went to England in 1738, where he resided until his decease; and being seized of lands in NewtYork, he, on the 30th of Nov

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

Reversed Intellectual Property 1817

Colson v. Thompson

(chancery.) Colson v. Thompson. Bill for the specific- execution of an alleged agreement to convey to the plaintiff one third of a certain tract of land in Kentucky, belonging to the defendant, as a compensation for locating and surveying t

15 U.S. 336 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1817

United States v. Tenbroek

(common law.) The United States v. Tenbroek. The act of Congress of the 24th July, 1813, imposing a duty, according to the capacity of the still, on all stills employed in distilling spirits from domestic or foreign materials, and inflictin

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

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1817

The Pizarro

(prize.) The Pizarro—Hibberson and Yonge, Claimants. If the court below deny an order for farther proof when it ought to be granted, or allow it when it ought to be denied, and the objection is taken by the party, and appears on the record,

15 U.S. 227 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1817

Duvall v. Craig

(common law.) Duvall v. Craig et. al. Variances between the writ and declaration are matters pleadable in abatement only, and cannot be taken advantage of upon genes^l demurrer to the declaration. A trastee is, in general enable only in equ

15 U.S. 45 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1817

M'Iver v. Ragan

(local law.) M‘Iver et al., Lessees, v. Ragan et al. Where the plaintiffs in ejectment claimed under a grant from the state of North Carolina, comprehending the lands for which the suit was brought, and the defendants claimed under a junior

15 U.S. 25 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1816

Martin v. Hunter's Lessee

(CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.} Martin, Heir at law and devisee of Fairfax, v. Hunter’s Lessee. The appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court of the United States extends to a final judgment or decree in any suit in the highest court of law or equi

14 U.S. 304 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Remanded Intellectual Property 1816

Walden v. Heirs of Gratz

(LOCAL LAW.) Walden v. The Heirs of Gratz. Under the Act’of Assembly of Kentucky, of 1798, entitled, « An.-Aci concerning champerty and maintenance,” a deed will pass the title to lands, notwithstanding an adverse possession. .The statute o

14 U.S. 292 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1816

Preston v. Browder

(LOCAL law:.) Preston v. Browder. The Act of Assembly of North Carolina, of November, 1711, establishing offices for receiving entries of claims for lands in the several counties of the state, did not authorize entries for lands within the

14 U.S. 115 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1815

Town of Pawlet v. Clark

THE TOWN OF PAWLET v. DANIEL CLARK, and others. Msént....ToDD, J. . This Court tio?^vhete" one’ party der™S,''rantn" from0tif?statc of New t (ampoiher unde?» grantfrom the at the time oí the first grant, part^New3 Hawpshire. lamfin equal sh

13 U.S. 292 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1815

Evans v. Jordan

EVANS v. JORDAN and MOREHEAD. .Msent..,Tom>, J. This w*as a case certified from the Circuit Court for the district of Virginia, in which, the judges were divided in opinion upon the question, whether after the expiration of the original pat

13 U.S. 199 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Remanded Intellectual Property 1815

M'Iver's Lessee v. Walker

M‘IVER’S Lessee v. WALKER and another. •#6senf....LiviNGs’T0N, J. Story, J.

13 U.S. 173 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1815

Finley v. Williams

FINLEY v. WILLIAMS and others. Absent....Tobo, X It rentrk5f ial -.viir not look bujond ty and MtyS‘to Z elder entry ,agafeanddei- -pre«rnption rights, the primemmiihold the la xi a-try, survey & ‘ THIS was an appeal from the decree of the

13 U.S. 164 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Remanded Intellectual Property 1815

Polk's Lessee v. Wendal

POLK’S Lessee v. WENDAL & AL. J&sewi....Livingston, J. Todd, J.

13 U.S. 87 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1815

Parker v. Rule's Lessee

PARKER v. RULE’S Lessee. ábicñt'...Johnson, J. 'and Todd, J, Seon^i-css uf b“Scoiic“t a direct, tax, (Ji;lv-1bi .) lector tmú!} fot non-payment ^J’Lís’ary tint he si-onid “‘^vtor (he Sht-' of lamis, ^K,r^ théAmount due tor ti.s ^tifioatlon^

13 U.S. 64 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Remanded Intellectual Property 1815

Simms v. Guthrie

SIMMS v. GUTHRIE AND AL. 4#&seMi....LiviNGST0N, J. Story, J. and Todd, J. Kentucky, in a suit in chancery. ERROR to the Circuit Court for the District of The lanil law of Virginia, which gives a eJ^tion TcT" tll0Sfc who had marked & im«‘ pr

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

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1814

Alexander v. Pendleton

Alexander and others v. Pendleton. Equity jurisdiction. — Notice.—Adverse possession. If the case be clear, a court of equity will interpose to quiet the title. A purchaser with notice is protected by his vendor’s want of notice, An adverse

12 U.S. 462 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1814

Green v. Liter

John Green v. John Liter and others. Real actions.— Writ of right. The circuit courts of the United States have jurisdiction in writs of right, where the property demanded exceeds $500 in value and if, upon the trial, the demandant recover

12 U.S. 229 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1814

Beatty' administrators v. Burnes's administrators

Beatty’s administrators v. Burnes’s administrators. Statute of limitations. The Maryland statute of limitations of three years, is a good bar to an action of assumpsit for money had and received, brought to try a title to lands in the city

12 U.S. 98 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion