Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1869
Railroad Company v. Trimble - 77 U.S. 367 (1869) U.S. Supreme Court Railroad Company v. Trimble, 77 U.S. 10 Wall. 367 367 (1869) Railroad Company v. Trimble 77 U.S. (10 Wall.) 367 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MARYLAND Syllabus 1. A deed by which a party conveys "all his property and estate, whatsoever and wheresoever, of every kind and description," carries patent rights and extensions, if the party own any. 2. A decree in equity in one of the loyal states against a party who, having been engaged in the rebellion, was at the time a prisoner of war of the United States, outside of the state, and against whom there was no service of process, or any step taken to bring him before the court, is void, and any sale under it is also void. 3. Where there is doubt as to the proper meaning of an instrument, the construction which the parties to it have themselves put upon it, is entitled to great consideration, but where its meaning is clear, an erroneous construction of it by them ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1869
Little v. Herndon - 77 U.S. 26 (1869) U.S. Supreme Court Little v. Herndon, 77 U.S. 10 Wall. 26 26 (1869) Little v. Herndon 77 U.S. (10 Wall.) 26 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Syllabus 1. A defendant, claiming under an Illinois tax deed, who would avail himself of the statute of Illinois, of February 21, 1861, setting forth what facts may be shown to establish the invalidity of such a deed, and precluding, except upon certain conditions, a question of it for any other cause, must show not only a tax deed in proper form, but show also a judgment under which the tax sale was made. 2. On an objection to the admission of a deed because of an alleged erasure and interlineation apparent on its face, the court may properly admit the deed, leaving it to the jury to determine whether there was any alteration. 3. A deed for lands in Illinois, executed in Virginia and acknowledged in Page 77 U. S. 27 conformity with its laws at the time of execution...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1869
The Secretary v. McGarrahan - 76 U.S. 298 (1869) U.S. Supreme Court The Secretary v. McGarrahan, 76 U.S. 9 Wall. 298 298 (1869) The Secretary v. McGarrahan 76 U.S. (9 Wall.) 298 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus 1. The Commissioner of the Land Office cannot properly grant a patent under the 7th section of the Act of July, 1866, "to quiet land titles in California" unless the purchaser bring himself by affirmative proofs within the terms of the section. 2. The granting of a patent for lands in cases where proofs, hearing, and decision are required and where the exercise of judgment and discretion is thus necessary is not a matter wherein the action of the Department of the Interior is subject to reexamination by the Supreme Court of the District. 3. A judgment in mandamus ordering the performance of an official duty against an officer as if yet in office when in fact he had gone out after service of the writ and before the judgment is void. Such ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1869
Railroad Company v. Fremont County - 76 U.S. 89 (1869) U.S. Supreme Court Railroad Company v. Fremont County, 76 U.S. 9 Wall. 89 89 (1869) Railroad Company v. Fremont County 76 U.S. (9 Wall.) 89 I N ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA Syllabus The proviso in the Act of May 15, 1856, to the State of Iowa, for aid in the construction of railroads which excludes from the grant "all lands heretofore reserved by any act of Congress or in any manner by competent authority for the purpose of aiding in any object of internal improvement or for any purpose whatever" excludes the lands granted to that state, among others, by the Act of September 28, 1850, known as "the swamp land grant." Fremont County, Iowa, filed a bill in one of the state courts of Iowa against the Burlington & Missouri River Railroad Company to quiet the title to twelve thousand seven hundred and fifty-four acres of land, or thereabouts, situate in the said county which the company claimed as belonging to it....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1869
Blanchard v. Putnam - 75 U.S. 420 (1869) U.S. Supreme Court Blanchard v. Putnam, 75 U.S. 8 Wall. 420 420 (1869) Blanchard v. Putnam 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 420 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Syllabus 1. Where, in a suit at law for infringement of a patent, witnesses testify to previous invention, knowledge, or use of the thing patented, the judgment will be reversed unless an antecedent compliance with the requirements of the 15th section of the Patent Act, requiring in the notice of special matter the names and places of residence of those whom the defendant intends to prove possessed prior knowledge, and where the same had been used, appear in the record. And this although no reversal for this cause have been asked by counsel, but the case have been argued wholly on other grounds. 2. Semble that the only proper comparison on a question of infringement, is of the defendant's machine with that of the plaintiffs, as described in the pleadings, and tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1869
Wise v. Allis - 76 U.S. 737 (1869) U.S. Supreme Court Wise v. Allis, 76 U.S. 9 Wall. 737 737 (1869) Wise v. Allis 76 U.S. (9 Wall.) 737 ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION BETWEEN THE JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN Syllabus 1. In giving notice under the 15th section of the Patent Act of July 4th, 1836, of the names and places of residence of those by whom he intends to prove a previous use or knowledge of the thing, and where the same had been used, the party giving notice is not bound to be so specific as to relieve the other from all inquiry or effort to investigate the facts. If he fairly puts his adversary in the way that he may ascertain all that is necessary to his defense or answer, it is all that can be required, and he is not bound by his notice to impose an unnecessary and embarrassing restriction on his own right of producing proof of what he asserts. 2. Held therefore, in a suit for infringing a patent for balancing millstones, that ...
Tag this Judgment!