Find court opinions that match your case.

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1860

Greer v. Mezes

John Greer and others, Plaintiffs in Error, v. S. M. Mezes, Maria de la Solidad Ortega de Arguello, and Jose Ramon Arguello. Where the plaintiffs in ejectment showed a legal title to land in California undei a patent from the United States

65 U.S. 268 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Remanded Intellectual Property 1860

McEwen v. Den

William S. McEwen and Henry H. Wiley, Plaintiffs in Error, v. John Den, Lessee of Charles Bulkley and Stuart Brown. By the laws of Tennessee anterior to 1856, a deed for lands lying in Tennessee could not be acknowledged or proven in anothe

65 U.S. 242 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1860

Davila v. Mumford

Miguel Davila, Plaintiff in Error, v. David Mumford and Jesse Mumford. THe statute of limitations of Texas provides in its fifteenth section, “ that Avery suit to be instituted to recover real estate, as against him, her,- or them, in posse

65 U.S. 214 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Remanded Intellectual Property 1860

Kellogg v. Forsyth

Henry M. Kellogg and others v. Robert Forsyth. The statutes of Illinois require that a declaration in ejectment shall be served upon the actual occupant, and the practice of that State authorizes the appearance of the landlord and his defen

65 U.S. 186 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Reversed Intellectual Property 1860

Meehan v. Forsyth

Thomas Meehan and Charles Ballance, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Robert Forsyth. By the act of March 3d, 18.23, entitled “ An act to confirm certain claims to lots in the village of Peoria, in the State of Illinois,” the surveyor of public lands

65 U.S. 175 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Reversed Intellectual Property 1860

Phillips v. Page

William H. Phillips, Plaintiff in Error, v. George Page. In a patent taken out by Page for certain improvements in the .construction of the portable circular saw-mill, he claimed the manner of affixing and guiding the circular saw, by allow

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

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1860

Hall v. Papin

William A. Hall, Plaintiff in Error, v. Joseph L. Papin An act of Congress passed on the 15th of May, 1829, (3 Stat. at L., 605,) authorizes persons who claim lots in the'village of Peoria, in Illinois, to notify the register of the land of

65 U.S. 132 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Remanded Intellectual Property 1859

Mayor of New York v. Ransom

The Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty, of the City of New York, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Franklin Ransom and Uzziah Wenman. In an action for; damages for the infringement of a patent right, the plaintiff must furnish some data by which the jur

64 U.S. 487 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1859

Doe ex dem. Mann v. Wilson

John Doe, ex dem. Curtis Mann and Dolphus Hannah, Plaintiffs in Error, v. William Wilson. In a treaty made with, the Pottawatomie' Indians in 1832, there were reservations to individual Indians, which should be selected under the direction

64 U.S. 457 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1859

Castro v. Hendricks

Salvador Castro, Appellant, v. Thomas A. Hendricks, Commissioner of the General Land Office. Where there were 'two' separate claimants of land in California, both claiming under one original grant, and the surveyor, in running out their lin

64 U.S. 438 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1859

Hooper v. Scheimer

Nathan E. Hooper, Louisa J. Hooper, and Amanda E. Hooper, Minors, by Absalom Fowler, their next friend, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Jacob Scheimer. It is the settled doctrine of this court, that no action of ejectment will lie on an entry made

64 U.S. 235 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1859

Beaubien v. Beaubien

John Baptiste Beaubien and others, Complainants and Appellants, v. Antoine Beaubien and others, Defendants. Where a bill in chancery was filed by persons residing in Canada, claiming title to property in Detroit which had been in the exclus

64 U.S. 190 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1859

Teese v. Huntingdon

Lewis Teese and Lewis Teese, Jun., Plaintiffs in Error, v. C. P. Huntingdon and Mark Hopkins. Counsel fees are not a proper element for the consideration of the jury in the estimation of damages in actions for the infringement of a patent r

64 U.S. 2 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1859

Fuentes v. United States

Jose Maria Fuentes v. the United States. A petition was presented to the board of commissioners in California, claiming the confirmation of a title to land, which petition alleged— 1. that a grant had been issued by Micheltorena, and delive

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

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1859

Dalton v. United States

Henry Dalton, Appellant, v. the United States. Where the objection to a grant of land in California was, that the grantee was a foreigner, and therefore not entitled to hold land, this court is of the opinion that the testimony of conversat

63 U.S. 436 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Remanded Intellectual Property 1859

United States v. Pico

The United States, Appellants, v. Andres Pico. Where the preliminary proceedings to a grant of land in California were not produced, and the grant and certificate of approval came from, the hands of the claimants, no record of them being fo

63 U.S. 406 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1859

United States v. Widow, Heirs, & Executors of Hartnell

The United States v. the Widow, Heirs, and Executors, of William E. P. Hartnell, deceased. Tks law of Mexico, passed in 1824, directs that it shall not be permitted to unite in one hand, as property, more than one league of irrigable land,

63 U.S. 286 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1859

Chaffee v. Boston Belting Co.

Edwin M. Chaffee, Plaintiff in Error, v. The Boston Belting Company. Where a patentee, whose patent had been extended according to law, conveyed all his interest

63 U.S. 217 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1859

Maxwell v. Moore

David Maxwell, and Thomas Watkins and Mary Watkins his Wife, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Israel M. Moore, Madison M. Morris, Henry Morris, James P. Kellen, John F. Black, James F. Batte, and William M. Craig. An act of Congress, passed in 1812,

63 U.S. 185 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1859

Gonzales v. United States

Juan Jose Gonzales, Appellant, v. The United States. Where a grant of land in California describes it by name and boundaries, and then states that the land of which donation is made is one league in length and three-quarters of a league in

63 U.S. 161 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1859

Hale v. Gaines

John C. Hale, Plaintiff in Error, v. William H. Gaines and Maria Gaines his Wife, Albert Belding, Henry Belding, and George Belding, Heirs and Legal Representatives of Ludovicus Belding, deceased, Defendants. In an action' of ejectment for

63 U.S. 144 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Remanded Intellectual Property 1859

Roy v. Tatham

Thomas Otis Le Roy and David Smith, Appellants, v. Benjamin Tatham, Jun., Henry B. Tatham, and George N. Tatham. The patent of the Tathams, for an improvement upon the machinery used for making pipes and tubes from lead or tin, when in a se

63 U.S. 132 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1859

Morrill v. Cone

Elisha Morrill, Plaintiff in Error, v. John Cone and Carlos J. Cone. Although under a power of attorney, authorizing a conveyance of lands, the ' legal title does not pass when the attorney executes a deed, unless the sale was made in accor

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

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1859

Parker v. Kane

Joel Parker, Plaintiff in Error, v. Alonzo L. Kane. Where a deed for land in Wisconsin was voluntarily' destroyed by the parties without its being recorded, and adverse parties were bona fide purchasers with . out notice, (according to the

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