Find court opinions that match your case.

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1814

Vowles v. Craig

Vowles and others v. Craig and others. Military land-warrant. If a person who has obtained a survey, upon a military land-warrant, under the commonwealth of Virginia, for 2000 acres, sell and transfer, for a valuable consideration, his righ

12 U.S. 371 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1813

Wallen v. Williams

WALLEN v. WILLIAMS. ’Jflie Cil-cuit Court of Ten« nessee, as a C*urt of'equiiy, cannot award a writ oí hab. facial possessionem to enforce its , ecree. Araí»..,Livingston, Todb,«íw£ Btorv, J„ ERROR tó the Circuit Court for the district of E

11 U.S. 602 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1813

Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee

FAIRFAX'S DEVISEE v. HUNTER’S LESSEE. .25scnf....MAKSHAEi, Ch. J. and Washington, J. Lord Fairfat the tíme his death,- had fro ,• rT*Use¡•2en|J ^aste'ami u-e appropriated’*" lands in tin* «™Yirginii. ■ tov ma" cite lans)s”ni vúí gima by ocv

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

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1813

Blackwell v. Patton & Erwin's Lessee

BLACKWELL v. PATTON & ERWIN's lessee. Msent Washington, J„ and Todd, .7. By die laws of w. Carolina adeedforiaS Tennessee, executed in N. Carolina, byt grantors residing there jjj the veaz* proved i7’f by 0 ' snb" scribing witnesses before

11 U.S. 471 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1813

Preston v. Tremble

PRESTON v. TREMBLE. *36sen.i....ToDD, J. .If an equitable title be mergthe'partylias no relief in Sough the grant be void, » being con-0 ERROR to the Circuit Court for the district of East Tennessee, who had dismissed the Plaintiffs bill in

11 U.S. 354 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1812

Sheehy v. Mandeville

SHEEHY v. MANDEVILLE. Present....All the Judges. A note payable at 60 days, cannot be . given in evidence to support- a count upon a note, ■which count does not state When the note wa3 payable. The variance, Is fatal. Opon executing a writ

11 U.S. 208 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Reversed Intellectual Property 1812

Hughes v. Moore

HUGHES v. MOORE. . Present....Ml the judges.■ 'A Plaintiffmay before verdict, discount in lús and wave* the Issues joined thereon, money as a ®°: üff for the*" “lim7 d°n? mi^maíiSofthe Defendant p“ own,name {“'¿“i wldcl1 ¡¡^patented the «am

11 U.S. 176 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1810

Fletcher v. Peck

FLETCHER v. PECK. It is not necessary that a breach of covenant be assigned in the very words of the covenant. It is sufficient if it show a substantial breach. If the breach of covenant assigned be, that the state had no authority to sell

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

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1810

Massie v. Watts

MASSIE v. WATTS. The practice in Kentucky to call a jury to ascertain the facts in chancery causesis incorrect. A suit in chancery buy one who has the prior equity against him who has the eldest patent is in its nature loacl, and if it be a

10 U.S. 148 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1810

Tyler v. Tuel

TYLER AND OTHERS v. TUEL. An assignee of part of a patent right cannot maintain an action on the case for a violation of the patent. THIS was a case certified from the circuit court of the district of Vermont, Tyler. and others, as assignee

10 U.S. 324 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1810

Lodge's Lessee v. Lee

LODGE’S LESSEE v. LEE. A grant of an island by name, in the Potomac river, super adding the courses and distances of the lines thereof, which on resurvey are now found to exclude part of teh island, will pass the whole island. EJECTMENT by

10 U.S. 237 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1809

Owings v. Norwood's Lessee

OWINGS v. NORWOOD’S LESSEE. In an action of ejectment between two citizens of Maryland, fora tract of land in Maryland, if the defendant set up an outstanding title in a British subject which he contends is protected by the treaty» and ther

9 U.S. 344 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Reversed Intellectual Property 1809

Hepburn & Dundas v. Auld

HEPBURN and DUNDAS, plaintiffs in error, v. COLIN AULD, defendants in error; and HEPBURN and DUNDAS, appellants, v. COLIN AULD, appellee. posseSou^m severalty a tillon may1'be presumed. In equity, dispensed with if it be not of the, contrac

9 U.S. 262 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1809

Matthews v. Zane's Lessee

MATTHEWS v. ZANE’S LESSEE The lands in. eluded within the 'Zañeville district by the yet of the 3d Jvlarch, 1803, fcoulrf not, after that date, be sold at the Marietta landofHcc. ÉRROR to the supreme court of the state of Ohio for the count

9 U.S. 92 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Reversed Intellectual Property 1809

Bank of the United States v. Deveaux

THE BANK OF THE UNITED STATES v. DEVEAUX ET AL. A corporation aggregate, compi.M'd or eiuzuis of one state, may sue a citizen of another state in the circuit court of th¿ United States. Where the ¡urisdictio.nnf the United °Staies ttepends,

9 U.S. 61 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1808

Shearman v. Irvine's Lessee

*Shearman v. Irvine’s Lessee. Statute of limitations. The act of limitations of Georgia does not require an entry into lands within seven years after the title accrued, unless there be some adversary possession or title, to be defeated by s

8 U.S. 367 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Reversed Intellectual Property 1807

Marshall v. Currie

*Humphrey Marshall and wife v. James Currie. La/nd la/w of Kmtuohy. Loose and vague expressions in an entry of land, in Kentucky, may be rendered sufficiently certain, by the reference to natural objects mentioned in the entry, and by compa

8 U.S. 172 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1807

Skillern's executors v. May's executors

Skillern’s executors v. May’s executors. Fraud and failure of consideration. If the obligee of a bond obtain title in bis own name, for part of the lands, tbe assignment of which to the obligor was the consideration of the bond, and suffer

8 U.S. 137 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Remanded Intellectual Property 1806

Wilson v. Speed

*Wilson v. Speed. Competency of witness. — Final judgment. An assignee of a pre-emption warrant is held to be a competent witness, if the facts intended to be proved by his testimony do not tend to support the tide of the party producing hi

7 U.S. 283 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1806

McFerran v. Taylor

McFerran v. Taylor and Massie. Implied vjarranlg.— Verdict. He who sells property on a description given by himself, is bound in equity to make good that description; and if it be untrue in a material point, although the variance be occasio

7 U.S. 270 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1805

Penn's Lessee v. Klyne

*OCTOBER TERM, 1805. Present — Washington, Justice, and Peters, District Judge. Penn’s Lessee v. Klyne. Land titles in Pennsyl/vama. The Penn family were originally the sole owners of the soil of Pennsylvania; and prior to 1119, had a legal

4 U.S. 346 United States Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1805

Huidekoper's Lessee v. Douglass

*APRIL TERM, 1805. Present — Washington, Justice, and Peters, District Judge. Huidekoper’s Lessee v. Douglass. Wa/rra/ntee. —Settlement. A grantee by warrant, of lands lying north and west of the Ohio, &c., who was prevented from making suc

4 U.S. 338 United States Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1803

Marbury v. Madison

WILLIAM MARBURY v. JAMES MADISON, Secretary of State of the United States. FEBRUARY, 1803. At the last term, viz. December term, 1801, William Marbury, Dennis Ramsay, Robert Townsend Hooe, and William Harper, by their counsel, Charles Lee,

5 U.S. 137 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property · Pennsylvania 1802

Attorney-General v. Grantees under the act of April 1792

*SEPTEMBER TERM, 1802. Attorney-General v. The Grantees under the act of April 1792. Land-warrants. — Patents. Warrants granted under the act of 3d April 1792, are not ipso facto void, where the conditions of settlement and residence, withi

4 U.S. 206 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Read opinion