Find court opinions that match your case.

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1855

Minter v. Crommelin

William J. Minter; Hiram F. Saltmarsh, and Ashley Parker, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Charles Crommelin. Where a patent for land is issued by the officers of the United States, the presumption is that it is valid and passes the legal title. But

59 U.S. 87 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1855

Kissell v. Board of the President of the St. Louis Public Schools

Jacob Kissell, Plaintiff in Error, v. The Board of the President and Directors of the St. Louis Public Schools. The act of congress passed on the 13th of June, 1812, (2 Stats, at Large, 748,) reserved for the support of schools in the respe

59 U.S. 19 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Remanded Intellectual Property 1854

Fremont v. United States

John Charles Fremont, Appellant, v. The United States. By the act of congress passed on the3d March, 1851, (9 Stats, at Large, 631,) to ascertain and settle the private land claims in the State of California, it is made the duty of every pe

58 U.S. 542 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1854

Florida v. Georgia

The State of Florida, Complainant, v. The State of Georgia. In cases in which this court has original jurisdiction, the form of proceeding is not regulated by act of congress, but by the rules and orders of the court. These rules and orders

58 U.S. 478 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Remanded Intellectual Property 1854

Stevens v. Gladding

James Stevens, Appellant, v. Royal Gladding and Isaac T. Proud. Whether patent-rights and copyrights, held under the laws of the United States, are subject to seizure and sale on execution, is a question upon which the court dogs not expres

58 U.S. 447 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1854

West v. Cochran

Edward M. West, Plaintiff in error, v. Joseph Cochran. The act of congress, passed on the 3d of March, 1807, (2 Stats, at Large, 441,} appointing commissioners to adjudicate land claims against the United States, required that where titles

58 U.S. 403 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1854

United States ex rel. Tucker v. Seaman

The United States, ex relatione Beverly Tucker, Plaintiff in error, v. A. G. Seaman, Superintendent of Public Printing. By the act of congress passed on the 26th of August, 1852, ch. 91, it was made the duty of the superintendent of public

58 U.S. 225 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Reversed Intellectual Property 1854

Battin v. Taggert

Joseph Battin, Patentee, and Samuel Battin, Assignee, Plaintiffs in error, v. James Taggert, Defendant in error. Joseph Battin, Patentee, and Samuel Battin, Assignee, Plaintiffs in error, v. Robert Radcliffe and John Johnson, Defendants in

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

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1854

Troy Iron & Nail Factory v. Odiorne

The Troy Iron and Nail Factory, Appellant, v. George Odiorne, Jr., and Francis Odiorne. Amachine for making hook-headed spikes was constructed in Boston, prior to the 18th of April, 1839, and therefore not within a patent for a machine for

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

Remanded Intellectual Property 1854

Haydel v. Dufresne

Marcelin Haydel, Plaintiff in error, v. Francois Dufresne. In 1811, congress passed an act (2 Stat. at L. 663) giving to the owners of land in Louisiana bordering on any river, creek, &e., the preference in purchasing back land ; and whore,

58 U.S. 23 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1853

Doe v. Braden

John Doe, on the demise of Lot Clark, David Clarkson, Joseph D. Beers, Andrew Talcott, Brantz Mayer, and Harriet Hackley, Plaintiff in error, v. Joseph Addison Braden. In the ratification, by tho King of Spain, of the treaty by which Florid

57 U.S. 635 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1853

Irwin v. United States

James Irwin, Appellant, v. The United States. On 6th November, 1836, W. i\ Hamilton, William V. Robinson, and wife, by d?ed, conveyed to the United States “ the right and privilege to use, divert, and carry away from the fountain spring, by

57 U.S. 513 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Remanded Intellectual Property 1853

Guitard v. Stoddard

Joseph Guitard, Frederick Steudeman and Mary his Wife, and George Brown and Julia his Wife, Plaintiffs in error, v. Henry Stoddard. The act of Congress, passed on the 13th of June, 1812, (2 Stat. at Large, 748,) entitled' An act for the set

57 U.S. 494 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1853

Carroll v. Lessee of Carroll

Jane M. Carroll, Plaintiff in error, v. Lessee of George W. Carroll, De Rosz Carroll, Robert D. Carroll, Charles W. Carroll, John M. Martin and America his Wife, and John Ford and Mary his Wife. Bv the. common law of Maryland, lands of whic

57 U.S. 275 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1853

Chouteau v. Molony

Henry Chouteau, Plaintiff in error, v. Patrick Molony. On the 22d of September, 1788, the tribe of Indians called the Poxes, situated on the west bank of the Mississipi, sold to Julieu Dubuque a permit to work at the mine as long as he shou

57 U.S. 203 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1853

Sizer v. Many

George W. and Henry Sizer, Plaintiffs in error, v. William V. Many. "Where a judgment in a patent case was affirmed by this court with a blank in the record for costs, and the Circuit Court afterwards taxed these costs at a sum less than tw

57 U.S. 98 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1853

McCabe v. Worthington

Edward H. McCabe, Plaintiff in error, v. Lloyd D. Worthington. The act of Congress, passed on the 3d of March, 1807, (2 St. atL. 440,) declared that all claims to land in Missouri should be void unless notice of the claim should be filed wi

57 U.S. 86 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1853

Burgess v. Gray

Saunders Burgess, Plaintiff in error, v. John M. Gray, Thomas Burgess, Jr., Aaron Burgess, Simeon Burgess, James Burgess, Jr., Samuel T. Northcut, alias Northcraft, Silas Husky, Aaron A. Smirl, George Arnold, Austin M. Johnston, George W. O

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

Remanded Intellectual Property 1853

Livingston v. Woodworth

William Livingston and Ebenezer N. Calef, Appellants, v. William W. Woodworth, Administrator of William Woodworth, deceased, James G. Wilson, Artemas L. Brooks, and Ignatius Tyler, Appellees. Where the assignors of. a pateijt-right were joi

56 U.S. 546 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1853

Delauriere v. Emison

Auguste F. Delauriere, Plaintiff in Error, v. Thomas Emison. The several nets of Congress, passed in relation to claims to land in Missouri, under Spanish concessions, reserved such lands from sale from time to time. But there was an interm

56 U.S. 525 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1853

Corning v. Troy Iron & Nail Factory

Erastus Corning, John F. Winslow, and James Horner, Appellants, v. The Troy Iron and Nail Factory. Where the respondent in a chancery suit in the Circuit Court took two grounds of defence, and the judge, in giving his reasons for a decree d

56 U.S. 451 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1853

Foley v. Harrison

Arthur Morgan Foley, Plaintiff in Error, v. Samuel T. Harrison, Defendant, and Louis Lesassier, Intervenor. la 1841, Congress passed an act (5 Stat. at Large, 455) declaring that there shall be granted to each State, &c., (Louisiana being o

56 U.S. 433 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1853

Den ex dem. Russell v. Ass'n of Jersey Co.

John Den, ex dem. Archibald Russell, Plaintiff in Error, v. The Association of the Jersey Company. The soil under the public navigable waters of East New Jersey belongs to the State and not to the proprietors. This court, so decided in the

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

Remanded Intellectual Property 1853

Forsyth v. Reynolds

Robert Forsyth, Appellant, v. John Reynolds, Josiah E. McClure, and John McDougall. By two acts, passed in 1820 and 1823, Congress granted a lot in the village of Peoria, In the State of Illinois, to each settler who “had not heretofore rec

56 U.S. 358 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion