Andrews Vs. Cone

Andrews vs Cone

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1888

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/86080

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/86080
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided On: 1888
Case Number: 124 U.S. 720
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Andrews

Respondent

Cone

Excerpt

andrews v. cone - 124 u.s. 720 (1888) u.s. supreme court andrews v. cone, 124 u.s. 720 (1888) 124 u.s. 720 andrews et al. v. cone. february 20, 1888 jas. c. clayton, for appellant. thomas wilson, for appellee. blatchford, j. this is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit in equity in the circuit court of the united states for the district of minnesota, from a decree dismission the bill. the suit was brought for the infringement of the 'driven well' patent which was the subject of the decision of this court in andrews v. hovey, 123 u.s. 267 , 8 sup. ct. rep. 101, and in which case an application for a rehearing has just been denied. 124 u. s . --, ante, 676. the decree below in andrews v. hovey dismissed the bill, and this court affirmed it, holding the patent to have been invalid. in the present case there is a written stipulation, filed in this court, signed by the counsel of record here, that this case shall abide the result of the case of andrews v. hovey, in this court, and that the decree and mandate herein shall be the same as the decree and mandate in that case, except that no costs shall be taxed or awarded, or disbursements or officers' fees allowed or awarded, in this case in favor of or against either party hereto, and that each party shall pay his own costs and disbursements. in accordance with such stipulation, the decree of the circuit court is affirmed, subject to the above recited provisions of the stipulation.

Full Judgment

ANDREWS v. CONE - 124 U.S. 720 (1888)
U.S. Supreme Court ANDREWS v. CONE, 124 U.S. 720 (1888)

124 U.S. 720

ANDREWS et al.
v.
CONE.

February 20, 1888

Jas. C. Clayton, for appellant.

Thomas Wilson, for appellee.

BLATCHFORD, J.

This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit in equity in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Minnesota, from a decree dismission the bill. The suit was brought for the infringement of the 'driven well' patent which was the subject of the decision of this court in Andrews v. Hovey, 123 U.S. 267 , 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 101, and in which case an application for a rehearing has just been denied. 124 U. S . --, ante, 676. The decree below in Andrews v. Hovey dismissed the bill, and this court affirmed it, holding the patent to have been invalid. In the present case there is a written stipulation, filed in this court, signed by the counsel of record here, that this case shall abide the result of the case of Andrews v. Hovey, in this court, and that the decree and mandate herein shall be the same as the decree and mandate in that case, except that no costs shall be taxed or awarded, or disbursements or officers' fees allowed or awarded, in this case in favor of or against either party hereto, and that each party shall pay his own costs and disbursements. In accordance with such stipulation, the decree of the circuit court is affirmed, subject to the above recited provisions of the stipulation.

Same Parties Andrews vs Cone Same Subject Land Acquisition