Find court opinions that match your case.

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1869

Wood-Paper Co. v. Heft

Wood-paper Company v. Heft. 1. An appeal upon a bill for the infringement of a patent dismissed, it appearing that after the appeal the appellants had purchased a certain patent to the defendants, under which the defendants sought to protec

75 U.S. 333 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1868

Gibson v. Chouteau

Gibson v. Chouteau. 1. It is necessary to the jurisdiction of this court, under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act, that the record show, either by express words or necessary legal intendment, that one of the questions mentioned in that

75 U.S. 314 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1868

Morey v. Lockwood

Morey v. Lockwood. 1. Where a limitation of a claim, as found in a patent, has been caused by a mistake of the Commissioner of Patents in supposing that prior inventions would be covered, if the claim was made, as the applicant makes it, mo

75 U.S. 230 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1868

Mills v. Smith

Mills v. Smith. 1. -Under the recording acts of Illinois, which enact that deeds shall take effect as against creditors and subsequent purchasers from the time that they are filed of record, it is necessary, in order to defeat.a subsequent

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

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1868

Whitely v. Swayne

Whitely v. Swayne. •1. Where a patent has been grante.d for improvements, which, after a full and fair trial, resulted in unsuccessful experiments, and have been finally abandoned, if any other person takes up the suojeet-of the improve- '

74 U.S. 685 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Reversed Intellectual Property 1868

Moore v. Marsh

Moore v. Marsh. Under the fourteenth section of the Patent Act of 1836, enacting that damages may be recovered by action on the case, to he brought in the name of the person “interested,” the original owner of the patent, who has afterwards

74 U.S. 515 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1868

Gaines v. Thompson

Gaines v. Thompson. The act of the Secretary of the Interior and Commissioner of the Land Office, in cancelling an entry for land, is not a ministerial duty, but is a matter resting in the judgment and discretion of these officers as repres

74 U.S. 347 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1868

Thomson v. Dean

Thomson v. Dean. 1. The rule laid down in Forgay v. Conrad (6 Howard, 204), as to what constitutes a final decree for the jiurpose of an appeal, recognized as the true rule on the subject. 2. Hence, where a bill related to the ownership and

74 U.S. 342 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1868

Tyler v. Boston

Tyler v. Boston. 1.. When a patent is claimed for a discovery of a new substance by means of chemical combinations of known materials, it should state the component parts of the new manufacture claimed, with clearness and precision, and not

74 U.S. 327 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1868

Jacobs v. Baker

Jacobs v. Baker. 1. Semble that an improvement in the plan of constructing a jail, is not a subject of patent within the Patent Acts of 1836 or 1842. 2. Jacobs was not the first inventor of the improvements patented to him in 1859 and 1860,

74 U.S. 295 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1868

Railroad Co. v. Schurmeir

Railroad Company v. Schurmeir. X. The meander-lines run in surveying fractional portions, of the public lands bordering upon navigable rivers, are run, not as boundaries of the tract, but for the purpose of defining the sinuosities of the b

74 U.S. 272 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Remanded Intellectual Property 1868

Silver v. Ladd

Silver v. Ladd. 1. In construing a benevolent statute of the government, made for the benefit of its own citizens, and inviting and encouraging them to settle on its distant public lands, the words “single man” and “married man,” may, espec

74 U.S. 219 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1867

White v. Cannon

White v. Cannon. 1. A patent of the United States relinquishing to the patentee their right to certain land, but providing that it shall in no manner affect the rights of third persons, nor preclude a judicial decision between private claim

73 U.S. 443 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1867

Stark v. Starrs

Stark v. Starrs. 1. Under the statute of Oregon which provides, that any person in possession of real property may maintain a suit in equity against another, who claims an estate or interest therein adverse to him, for the purpose of determ

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

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1867

McClane v. Boon

McClane v. Boon. 1. Where,pending a writ of error to this court, subsequently dismissed, the defendant in error dies and the other side wishes to take a new writ, application should be made to the court below for the purpose of reviving the

73 U.S. 244 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1867

Reichart v. Felps

Reichart v. Felps. 1. A decision in the highest court of a State against the validity of a patelit granted by the United States for land, and whose validity is drawn in question in such court, is a decision against the validity of an author

73 U.S. 160 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1867

Rubber Co. v. Goodyear

Rubber Company v. Goodyear. 1. Though a decree have been entered “ os” of a prior date — the date of an order settling apparently the'terms of a decree to be entered thereafter— the rights of the parties in respect to an appeal are determin

73 U.S. 153 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1867

Rector v. Ashley

Rector v. Ashley. 1. Where a case is brought here by a writ, of error to a State court under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act, this court can only review the decision of the State court on the question or questions mentioned in that se

73 U.S. 142 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1866

Higueras v. United States

Higueras v. United States. 1. Land claims arising by virtue of a right or title-derived from the Spanish or Mexican government are required to be. presented to the land commissioners for adjudication. 2. Final'decrees in such cases, whether

72 U.S. 827 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Remanded Intellectual Property 1866

Deery v. Cray

Deery v. Cray. 1. No person can rely on an estoppel growing out of a transaction to which be was neither a party nor a privy, anil which in no manner touches his rights, Hence where a plaintiff claims under A. and his deed, defendants who d

72 U.S. 795 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1866

Kelly v. Crawford

Kelly v. Crawford. 1. Where agents, in the sale of an article, acknowledging a debt of unascertained amount due their principals, sign an agreement passing certain debts described as “ all accounts hereunto attached, and marked Exhibit A,”

72 U.S. 785 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Remanded Intellectual Property 1866

The Kansas Indians

The Kansas Indians 1. The State of Kansas has no right to tax lands held in severalty by individual Indians of the Shawnee, Miami, and' Wea tribes,.under patents issued to. them by virtue of the treaties made with those tribes respectively

72 U.S. 737 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1866

Bates v. Brown

Bates v. Brown. The rule of the common law, commonly called “ the rule of shifting inheri tance, ” is not in force in Illinois. This was a writ of error to the Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Kinzie Bates, the plaintiff

72 U.S. 710 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1866

De Haro v. United States

De Haro v. United States. I. In 1844, persons in California petitioned the Mexican governor of that province for a grant of certain described land, situated in the vicinity of the Mission of San Francisco. The petition was referred to the s

72 U.S. 599 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion