Find court opinions that match your case.

Remanded Intellectual Property 1857

Dean v. Mason

William B. Dean, Appellant, v. Nathan Mason et al. In suits for the infringement of a patent right, the rule of dam.' es is the amount which the infringer actually realized in profits, not what he night have made hf reasonable diligence. Af

61 U.S. 198 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1857

Brown v. Shannon

Isaac Brown, Appellant, v. Joseph P. Shannon et al. Where a bill is filed to enforce the specific execution of a contract in relation to tlie use of a patent right, this court has no appellate jurisdiction, unless the matter in controversy

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

Remanded Intellectual Property 1857

Doswell v. De La Lanza

J. Temple Doswell, Plaintiff in Error, v. Enrique De La Lanza et al. This court again decides, as in former cases, that a refusal of the court below to grant a new trial is not a proper subject for a bill of exception. In an action of eject

61 U.S. 29 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1857

Garland v. Wynn

Josiah Garland, Plaintiff in Error, v. Robert H. Wynn, Executor and Devisee of William Wynn, deceased. Where several parties set up conflicting claims to property, with which a special tribunal may deal, as between one party and the Governm

61 U.S. 6 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Remanded Intellectual Property 1856

Ballance v. Papin

Charles Ballance, Plaintiff in Error, v. Adolph Papin, Henry Papin, and Mary Atchison. Under the circumstances described in the-preceding case, if there -was no sufficient evidence of a survey under the act of 1823, the title claimed, under

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

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1856

Bryan v. Forsyth

William F. Bryan and Rudolphus Rouse, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Robert Forsyth. By the acts Of Congress passed on the 15th of May, 1820, and March 3d, 1823, provision "was made, that each of the settlers in Peoria, Illinois, should be entitle

60 U.S. 334 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1856

Field v. Seabury

Edward Field, Plaintiff in Error, v. Pardon G. Seabury et al. When, a grant or patent for land, or legislative confirmation of titles to land, has i heen given by the sovereignty or legislative authority only having the right to make it, wi

60 U.S. 323 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Reversed Intellectual Property 1856

Bell v. Hearne

John Bell, Plaintiff in Error, v. Columbus C. Hearne, Samuel R. Hearne, and Samuel H. Dockery. The act of Congress of 1820 and regulations of the General Land Office of 1831 direct the manner in which purchases pt public land shall be authe

60 U.S. 252 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1856

Hartshorn v. Day

Isaac Hartshorn and Daniel Hayward, Plaintiffs in Error v. Horace H. Day. Where a patentee is about to. apply for a renewal of his patent, and agrees with another person that, in case of success, he will assign to him the renewed patent, an

60 U.S. 211 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Remanded Intellectual Property 1856

Cousin v. Labatut

Terence Cousin, Plaintiff in Error, v. Fanny Labatut, Widow and Testamentary Executrix, Jules A. Blanc, Co-Executor, and others, Legal Representatives of Evariste Blanc. In Louisiana, all the evidence taken in the court below goes up to the

60 U.S. 202 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1856

Brown v. Duchesne

John Brown, Plaintiff in Error, v. - Duchesne. The rights of property and exclusive use granted to a patentee do not extend to a foreign Yessei lawfully entering one of our ports; and the use of such improvement in the construction, fitting

60 U.S. 183 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1856

Long v. O'Fallon

Reuben L. Long, John S. Penrise, and Amelia Penrise, his Wife, and Alice Penrise, by her Guardian, John S. Penrise, Complainants and Appellants, v. John O'Fallon. Where an administrator sells property -which had been conveyed to him for the

60 U.S. 116 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Remanded Intellectual Property 1856

Seymour v. McCormick

William H. Seymour and Layton S. Morgan, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Cyrus H. McCormick. The act of Congress passed on the 3d of March, 1837, (5 Stat. at L., 194,) provides that a patentee may enter a disclaimer, if he has included in his paten

60 U.S. 96 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1856

Willot v. Sandford

Sebastian Willot, John McDonald, and Joseph Hunn, Plaintiffs in Error, v. John F. A. Sandford. Where there are two confirmations by Congress of the same land in Missouri, the elder confirmation gives the better title; and the jury are not a

60 U.S. 79 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1856

Stevens v. Gladding & Proud

James Stevens, Plaintiff in Error, v. Royal Gladding and Isaac T. Proud, trading under the name and firm of Gladding & Proud, Defendants. Where no - error appears upon the record in the proceedings of the Circuit Court, the case having been

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

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1856

Shaffer v. Scudday

William A. Shaffer, Plaintiff in Error, v. James A. Scudday. • -P* O 3» ® B 5* a “ ® 8, ct- ^ o » *3 _ B or £ P 8 - ga 2 3 g, g ° 2 ro gf g. ji g. g P *= 5 2. P. ■*> 3 g Mj t — I H->. 2 oo 52. 2 ^ s» g co S pj 5 S w ||^ a ® O p. a> Í4. ^ g.

60 U.S. 16 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1855

United States v. Larkin

The United States, Appellants, v. Thomas O. Larkin and John S. Missroon. Where there was a grant of land in California made by the governor to the secretary of the government, and neither -the petition nor the patent stated the quantity, bu

59 U.S. 557 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1855

Ledoux v. Black

Amaron Ledoux, Alphonse Miltenberger, and George O. Hall, Plaintiffs in Error, v. John Black, John Hagan, Jr., John Hagan, Sr., Francis Wren, J. M. Smiley, and Ephraim McLean In the ease of an imperfect Spanish title to land in Louisiana, a

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

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1855

Stanford v. Taylor

Joshua R. Stanford, Plaintiff in Error, v. Clay Taylor. Where an imperfect Spanish title to land in Missouri was confirmed by the commissioners, but the claim required a survey to ascertain its limits and boundaries, evidence cannot be rece

59 U.S. 409 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1855

Kinsman v. Parkhurst

Israel Kinsman and Calvin L. Goddard, Appellants, v. Stephen R. Parkhurst. Where there was an agreement between a patentee and an assignee that the latter should manufacture the machines for a certain time and upon certain terms, it is too

59 U.S. 289 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1855

Heirs of Lafayette v. Kenton

The Heirs of General Lafayette, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Joseph Kenton et al. The Heirs of General Lafayette, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Edward C. Carter et al. By acts of congress passed in 1803 and 1805, General Lafayette was authorized to lo

59 U.S. 197 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Reversed Intellectual Property 1855

Cooper v. Roberts

James M. Cooper, Plaintiff in Error, v. Enoch C. Roberts. It has always been a cherished policy with the government of the United S.tates to ' appropriate the section numbered sixteen in every township of land for the use of schools. " ■ .

59 U.S. 173 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1855

Little v. Hall

Edwin C. Little, and Oliver Scovill, Appellants, v. Levi W. Hall, Anthony Gould, David Banks, William Gould, and David Banks, Jr. On the 27th of December, 1847, George H. Comstock iVas appointed state reporter, under a statute of the State

59 U.S. 165 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1855

Ham v. Missouri

Adam Ham, Plaintiff in Error, v. The State of Missouri. The act of congress passed on the 6th of March, 1820, (3 Stats, at Large, 547,) accepted by an ordinance declaring the assent of the people of Missouri thereto, adopted on'the 19th of

59 U.S. 126 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion