Find court opinions that match your case.

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1858

Lea v. Polk County Copper Co.

William P. Lea, Appellant, v. The Polk County Copper Company et al. The certificate of probate of a deed in Tennessee did not say that the witness swore that the grantor acknowledged it on the day of its date. But as the certificate said th

62 U.S. 493 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1858

Fenn v. Holme

William Fenn, Plaintiff in Error, v. Peter H. Holme. The plaintiff in ejectment must in all cases prove a legal title to the premises in himself, at 'the time of "the demise laid in the declaration, and evidence of an equitable title will n

62 U.S. 481 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1858

Western Telegraph Co. v. Magnetic Telegraph Co.

The Western Telegraph Company, Appellants, v. The Magnetic Telegraph Company and Arumah S. Abell and Zenus Barnum. Where there was a telegraph company from Baltimore to Wheeling,.with branches to Washington and Pittsburg, and another compan

62 U.S. 456 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1858

United States v. Fossatt

The United States, Appellants, v. Charles Fossatt. The only cases which will be.taken np out of their regular order on the docket-are those where the question in dispute will embarrass the operations of the Government while it remains unset

62 U.S. 445 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1858

Easton v. Salisbury

Alton R. Easton, Plaintiff in Error, v. Thomas L. Salisbury. Between May, 1829, and July, 1832, there was an interval in the acts of Congress reserving lands from sale which wére claimed under Spanish concessions in Louisiana; and during th

62 U.S. 426 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1858

Kendall v. Winsor

George Kendall, Leander M. Ware, and George L. Jencks, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Joseph S. Winsor. The ultimate object of the patent laws being to benefit the public by the use of the invention after the temporary monopoly shall have expired,

62 U.S. 322 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1858

Brown v. Huger

Jacob B. Brown, Jacob Nisswaner, Fontaine Beckham, John C. Unseld, and George W. Moler, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Benjamin Huger. .Where there had been hn original entry for. land made in the office of the Lord Proprietor of the Northern Neck

62 U.S. 305 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Remanded Intellectual Property 1858

Morehouse v. Phelps

Dickerson B. Morehouse, Plaintiff in Error, v. William A. Phelps. By the acts of Congress passed in 1829, (4 Stat. at L., 334,) and 1836, (5 Stat. at L., 79,) commissioners were to be appointed to hear and determine all . claims to lots of

62 U.S. 294 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1858

Doe ex dem. Dickins v. Mahana

John Doe, ex dem. Francis A. Dickins, Plaintiff in Error, v. Alonzo Mahana. 'In 1792; Congress granted .to certain, persons a tract of land in Ohio, upon the condition that they would lay off lots of an hundred acres each to actual settlers

62 U.S. 276 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1858

Lessee of French v. Spencer

Lessee of William C. French and Wife, Plaintiff in Error, v. William H. Spencer, Jun., Joseph Spencer, and Anna A. Spencer. By an act of Congress passed in 1816, (3 Stat. at L., 256,) a bounty in land was given to those American citizens wh

62 U.S. 228 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1858

Barreda v. Silsbee

Frederick L. Barreda and Philip Barreda, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Benjamin H. Silsbee, John H. Silsbee, Benjamin W. Stone, William Stone, George T. Sanders, and William D. Pickman. Where a vessel was chartered to bring a cargo of guano from

62 U.S. 146 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1858

Winans v. New York & Erie Railroad

Ross Winans, Plaintiff in Error, v. The New York and Erie Railroad Company. ■ Where objection was made, during the trial of a .cause, to the reception of the deposition of a witness, which had been taken under a commission, it was properly

62 U.S. 88 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1857

Ransom v. Mayor of New York

Ex parte in the matter of Franklin Ransom and Uzziah Weeman v. The Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty, of the City of New York. Where there -was an order of the Circuit Court to set aside a judgment upon payment by the defendant of the costs w

61 U.S. 581 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1857

Marks v. Dickson

James Marks, Plaintiff in Error, v. Michael Dickson and Elizabeth M. Dickson. In May, 1830, Congress passed an act (4 Stat. at L., 420) which gave the right of preemption to settlers on the public lands, but made null and void all assignmen

61 U.S. 501 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1857

Roberts v. Cooper

Enoch C. Roberts, Plaintiff in Error, v. James M. Cooper. This court again decides, that after a case has been brought here and decided, and - a mandate issued to the court below, if a second writ of error is sued out, it brings up for revi

61 U.S. 467 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Remanded Intellectual Property 1857

McCormick v. Talcott

Cyrus H. McCormick, Appellant, v. Waite Talcott, Ralph Emmerson, Jesse Blinn, and Sylvester Talcott, Survivors of John H. Manny. The reaping machines made by Manny do not infringe McCormick’s patent, either . as to the divider, the manner i

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

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1857

Silsby v. Foote

Horace C. Silsby, Washburn Race, Abel Downs, Henry Henion, and Edward Mynderse, Appellants, v. Elisha Foote. Foote’s patent declared good; for the combination of machinery used in “the application of the expansive and contracting power of a

61 U.S. 378 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1857

Gazzam v. Lessee of Phillips

Charles W. Gazzam, Plaintiff in Error, v. Lessee of Elam Phillips and Mary his wife, and Ashbey W. Etheridge. The décision of this court in the case of Brown v. Clements (3 How., 650) reviewed and' controlled. ' ... The quantity of land gra

61 U.S. 372 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1857

Silsby v. Foote

Horace C. Silsby et al., Appellants, v. Elisha Foote. Where an appeal from a decree is taken within ten days from the rendition of the decree, it is in time to operate as a supersedeas; and so, also, if taken within ten days after the decre

61 U.S. 290 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Remanded Intellectual Property 1857

Spencer v. Lapsley

Eliphas Spencer, Plaintiff in Error, v. John W. Lapsley. The judge of the District Court of the United States in Texas had power to order the record of a suit in which he was interested to be transmitted to the Circuit Court of the United S

61 U.S. 264 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1857

United States v. De Pacheco

The United States, Appellant, v. Juana S. De Pacheco. The United States, Appellant, v. Samuel J. Hensley. The United States, Appellant, v. John Bidwell. The United States, Appellant, v. Antonio Sunot et al. As the act of Congress passed on

61 U.S. 261 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1857

Day v. Union India Rubber Co.

Horace H. Day, Appellant, v. The Union India Rubber Company. The party defendants in the present suit have as much right to manufacture various articles of India rubber under Chaffee’s patent, as the licensees in the case of Hartshorn v. Da

61 U.S. 216 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1857

Chaffee v. Hayward

Edwin M. Chaffee, Trustee of Horace H. Day, Plaintiff in Error, v. Nathaniel Hayward. Horace H. Day, Plaintiff in Error, v. Nathaniel Hayward. By the judiciary act of 1789, no civil suit shall be brought against an inhabitant of the United

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

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1857

Carroll v. Dorsey

Jane Carroll, Maria C. Fitzhugh, et al., Devisees of Daniel Carroll of Duddington, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Nicholas Dorsey, Noah Dorsey, Achsah Dorsey, Tristam S. Dorsey, heirs at law of Alfred R. Dowson, deceased. Although an irregularity

61 U.S. 204 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion