Find court opinions that match your case.

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1879

Planing-Machine Co. v. Keith

Planing-Machine Company v. Keith. 1. The action of the Commissioner of Patents in granting letters-patent does not conclude the question whether there was not an abandonment. A person charged with infringing them, may show that before they

101 U.S. 479 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1879

Marquez v. Frisbie

Marquez v. Frisbie. 1. An injunction or a mandamus will not lie against an officer of the Land Department to control him in discharging an official duty which requires the exercise of his judgment and discretion. 2. A court will not, by rea

101 U.S. 473 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1879

Water-Meter Co. v. Desper

Water-Meter Company v. Desper. 1. While letters-patent for a combination are not infringed if a material part of it is omitted, yet if a part which is only formally omitted is supplied .by a mechanical equivalent performing the same office

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

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1879

Simmons v. Wagner

Simmons v. Wagner. 1. A tract of public land -which has been sold by the proper officer of the United States, and the purchase-money therefor paid, is not subject to entry while the sale continues in force. 2. A party in possession of lands

101 U.S. 260 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1879

Leggett v. Avery

Leggett v. Avery. 1. Where, on the surrender of letters-patent, a disclaimer of a part of the inventions described in them is filed by the patentee in the Patent Office, and reissued letters are granted for the remainder, — Held, that, if i

101 U.S. 256 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1879

Watt v. Starke

Watt v. Starke. 1. The verdict upon an issue which a court of chancery directs to be tried at law ■ is merely advisory. A motion for a new trial can be made only to that court, and the party submitting it must procure, for the use of the Ch

101 U.S. 247 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1879

Hatch v. Dana

Hatch v. Dana. 1. Creditors of an incorporated company who have exhausted their remedy at law can, in order to obtain satisfaction of their jndgment,.proceed in equity against a stockholder to enforce his liability to the company for the am

101 U.S. 205 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Remanded Intellectual Property 1879

Baker v. Selden

Baker v. Selden. 1. A claim to the exclusive property in a peculiar system of book-keeping cannot, under the law of copyright, be maintained by the author of a treatise in which that system is exhibited and explained. 2. The difference betw

101 U.S. 99 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1879

Embry v. United States

Embry v. United States. April 20, 1867, the President duly commissioned A. as deputy postmaster at Nashville, Tenn., for the term of four years, “subject to the conditions prescribed by law,” and May 5, 1869, under the act of April 5, 1869

100 U.S. 680 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1879

Burns v. Meyer

Burns v. Meyer. 1. A. held letters-patent for making side-saddle trees. The tree, composed of side-bars, cantle behind, and crook before, is first made, and the seat constructed separately on a rim and fastened to the tree by screws, restin

100 U.S. 671 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1879

Craig v. Smith

Craig v. Smith. 1. Papers properly belonging to the files of a court should not be removed therefrom, except in cases of positive necessity. When, therefore, an appeal is taken, no order for transmitting such papers ought to be made, unless

100 U.S. 226 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1879

Elastic Fabrics Co. v. Smith

Elastic Fabrics Company v. Smith. 1. Where letters-patent expired before the final determination of the suit brought by the patentee complaining of the infringement of them, and praying for an injunction and an account, and the court below,

100 U.S. 110 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1879

United States v. Steffens

TRADE-MARK CASES. United States v. Steffens; United States v. Wittemann; United States v. Johnson. 1. Property in trade-marks has long been recognized and protected by the common law and by the statutes of the several States, and does not d

100 U.S. 82 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1879

Arthur v. Herold

Arthur v. Herold. In an action against a collector of customs, to recover duties alleged to have been wrongfully exacted upon chicory imported in 1873, it was not error for the court to charge the jury that ground chicory was the same thing

100 U.S. 75 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1879

Cowell v. Springs Co.

Cowell v. Springs Company. 1. A condition in a deed conveying land that intoxicating liquors shall never be manufactured, sold, or otherwise disposed of as a beverage in any place of public resort thereon, and that if this condition be brok

100 U.S. 55 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1878

Union Pacific Railroad v. United States

SINKING-FUND CASES. Union Pacific Railroad Company v. United States. Central Pacific Railroad Company v. Gallatin. 1. So far as it establishes in the treasury of the United States a sinking-fund, the act of Congress approved May 7,1878 (20

99 U.S. 700 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1878

Perris v. Hexamer

Perris v. Hexamer. The right of an author or a publisher, under the copyright law, is infringed only when other persons produce a substantial copy of the whole or of a material part of the book or other thing for which he secured a copyrigh

99 U.S. 674 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Reversed Intellectual Property 1878

Stringfellow v. Cain

Stringfellow v. Cain. 1. Under the act entitled “ An Act concerning the practice in territorial courts, and appeals therefrom,” approved April 7,1874 (18 Stat. pt. 3, p. 27), the appellate jurisdiction of this court over the judgment or the

99 U.S. 610 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1878

Terhune v. Phillips

Terhune v. Phillips. The court will take judicial notice of a thing which is in the common knowledge and use of the people through the country. It therefore.holes that reissued letters-patent No. 5748, granted to Matthias Terhune Jan. 27, 1

99 U.S. 592 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1878

Hartell v. Tilghman

Hartell v. Tilghman. 1. A suit between citizens of the same State cannot be sustained in the Circuit Court as arising under the patent laws of the United States, where the defendant admits the validity and his use of the plaintiff’s letters

99 U.S. 547 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1878

Union Pacific Railroad v. United States

Union Pacific Railroad Company v. United States. 1. The act entitled “ An Act to aid in the construction of a railroad and telegraph line from the Missouri River to the Pacific Ocean, and to secure to the government the use of the same for

99 U.S. 402 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1878

Ryan v. Railroad Co.

Ryan v. Railroad Company. 1. An act of Congress (14 Stilt. 239) granted to a railroad company, to aid in the construction of its road, every section of public land designated by odd numbers, to the amount of “twenty alternate sections per m

99 U.S. 382 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1878

Platt v. Union Pacific Railroad

Platt v. Union Pacific Railroad Company. 1. By the third section of the act of Congress approved July 1, 1862 (12 Stat. 489), incorporating the Union Pacific Railroad Company, lands were granted to the company, “for the purpose of aiding in

99 U.S. 48 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Remanded Intellectual Property 1878

Hussey v. Smith

Hussey v. Smith. An incorporated town in Utah was situate on public lands, which were duly-entered at the proper land-office by the mayor, to whom a patent was issued under the act of March 2, 1867 (14 Stat. 541). The legislature of the Ter

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