Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-20-1888
Andrews v. Hovey - 124 U.S. 694 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court Andrews v. Hovey, 124 U.S. 694 (1888) Andrews v. Hovey Submitted January 16, 1888 Decided February 20, 1888 124 U.S. 694 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA Syllabus The decision of this Court in Andrews v. Hovey, 123 U. S. 267 , adjudging reissued letters patent No. 4372, granted to Nelson W. Green, May 9, 1871, for an "improvement in the method of constructing artesian wells" to be invalid confirmed on an application for a rehearing. The case of Kendall v. Winsor, 21 How. 322, and other cases examined. The question of the proper construction of the second clause of 7 of the patent Act of March 3, 1839, 5 Stat. 354, as affecting the validity of a patent, considered. This was a petition for a rehearing of the case decided at this term and reported in 123 U.S. at 123 U. S. 267 . The allegations and prayer of the petitioners were as follows: Page 124 U. S. 695...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-30-1888
United States v. Beebe - 127 U.S. 338 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Beebe, 127 U.S. 338 (1888) United States v. Beebe No. 180 Argued February 10, 13, 1888 Decided April 30, 1888 127 U.S. 338 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Syllabus The Attorney General has authority under the Constitution to file a bill in equity in the name of the United States to set aside a patent of public land alleged to have been obtained by fraud or mistake, when the government has a direct interest in the tract patented or is under an obligation respecting the relief invoked by the bill. The United States are not bound by any statute of limitations, nor barred by laches of their officers in a suit brought by them, as sovereign, to enforce a public right or to assert a public interest, but where they are formal parties to the suit, and the real remedy sought in their came is the enforcement of a private right for the benefit of a p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Dec-10-1888
Marsh v. Nichols, Shepard & Co. - 128 U.S. 605 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court Marsh v. Nichols, Shepard & Co., 128 U.S. 605 (1888) Marsh v. Nichols, Shepard and Company Nos. 72, 95 Argued November 9, 1888 Decided December 10, 1888 128 U.S. 605 APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN Syllabus Letters patent for an invention, issued without the signature of the Secretary of the Interior, have no validity, although in every other respect the requirements of law may be complied with and although the issue without the Secretary's signature was unintentional, accidental, and unknown to the Department of the Interior or to the patentee; but this omission may be supplied by the Secretary or Acting Secretary of the Interior at the time when the correction is made, and from that time forward the letters operate as a patent for the invention claimed. An accounting for profits in a suit in equity to restrain an infringement of letters patent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-16-1888
New Orleans Pacific Ry. Co. v. United States - 124 U.S. 124 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court New Orleans Pacific Ry. Co. v. United States, 124 U.S. 124 (1888) New Orleans Pacific Railway Company v. United States Submitted January 6, 1888 Decided January 16, 1888 124 U.S. 124 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus Under the provision of the Act of July 31, 1876, c. 246, 19 Stat. 121, "that before any land granted to any railroad company by the United States shall be conveyed to such company, or any person entitled thereto under any of the acts incorporating or relating to such company, unless such company is exempted by law from the payment of such cost, there shall first be paid into the Treasury of the United States the cost of surveying, selecting, and conveying the same by the said company or persons in interest," the New Orleans Pacific Railway Company, as the owner, by conveyance from the New Orleans, Baton Rouge, and Vicksburg Railroad Company of its interest in the land g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Dec-17-1888
Cragin v. Powell - 128 U.S. 691 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court Cragin v. Powell, 128 U.S. 691 (1888) Cragin v. Powell No. 41 Argued and submitted October 26, 1888 Decided December 17, 1888 128 U.S. 691 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Syllabus When lands are granted according to an official plat of their survey, the plat, with its notes, lines, descriptions and landmarks becomes as much a part of the grant or deed by which they are conveyed, and, so far as limits are concerned, controls as much as if such descriptive features were written out on the face of the deed or grant. It is not within the province of a circuit court of the United States or of this Court to consider and determine whether an official survey duly made, with a plat thereof flied in the district land office, is erroneous, but with an exception referred to in the opinion, the correction of errors in such surveys has devolved from the earliest days upon t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-16-1888
More v. Steinbach - 127 U.S. 70 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court More v. Steinbach, 127 U.S. 70 (1888) More v. Steinbach No. 176 Submitted February 9, 1888 Decided April 16, 1888 127 U.S. 70 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus The Act of Congress of March 3, 1801, "to ascertain and settle the private land claims in the State of California," 9 Stat. 631, c. 41, created a board of commissioners to which all persons claiming land by virtue of any right or title derived from the Spanish or Mexican government were required to present their claims for examination and determination within two years from its date, with such documentary evidence and testimony of witnesses as they relied upon to support their claims, and provided in substance that if upon examination they were found by the board and by the courts of the United States to which an appeal could be taken to be valid, the claims should be confirmed and surveyed, and patents ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-19-1888
The Telephone Cases - 126 U.S. 1 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court The Telephone Cases, 126 U.S. 1 (1888) The Telephone Cases Nos. 10, 381, 382, 709, 770, 771 Argued January 24-28, 31, February 1-4, 7-8, 1887 Decided March 19, 1888 126 U.S. 1 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Syllabus It appears from the proof in these causes that Alexander Graham Bell was the first discoverer of the art or process of transferring to, or impressing upon, a continuous current of electricity in a closed circuit, by gradually changing its intensity, the vibrations of air produced by the human voice in articulate speech in a way to cause the speech to be carried to and received by a listener at a distance on the line of the current, and this discovery was patentable under the patent laws of the United States. In order to procure a patent for a process, the inventor must describe his invention with sufficient clearness and precision to enable those ski...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-19-1888
United States v. San Jacinto Tin Co. - 125 U.S. 273 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. San Jacinto Tin Co., 125 U.S. 273 (1888) United States v. San Jacinto Tin Company No. 887 Argued January 26-27, 30, 1888 Decided March 19, 1888 125 U.S. 273 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus A suit may be brought by the United States in any court of competent jurisdiction to set aside, cancel, or annul a patent for land issued in its name on the ground that it was obtained by fraud or mistake. The initiation and control of such a suit lies with the Attorney General as the head of one of the Executive Departments. But the right to bring such a suit exists only when the government has an interest in the remedy sought by reason of its interest in the land, or the fraud has been practiced on the government and operates to its prejudice, or it is under obligation to some individual to make his title good by setting aside the fr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-14-1888
United States v. McLaughlin - 127 U.S. 428 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. McLaughlin, 127 U.S. 428 (1888) United States v. McLaughlin No. 1027 Argued December 8-9, 12, 1887 Decided May 14, 1888 127 U.S. 428 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus The boundaries of the Mexican grant, called the Moquelamos grant, considered, the same being described as "bounded on the east by the adjacent sierra." Held, as the result of the evidence adduced, that its eastern limit was at the point where the foothills of the sierra begin to rise above the plain, near the range line between ranges 7 and 8. Mexican grants were of three kinds: 1, grants by specific boundaries, where the donee is entitled to the entire tract; 2, grants of quantity within a larger tract described by outside boundaries, where the donee is entitled to the quantity specified and no more; 3, grants of a certain place or rancho by name, where the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Dec-17-1888
Kennedy v. Hazelton - 128 U.S. 667 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court Kennedy v. Hazelton, 128 U.S. 667 (1888) Kennedy v. Hazelton No. 1081 Submitted December 3, 1888 Decided December 17, 1888 128 U.S. 667 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Syllabus Specific performance cannot be decreed of an agreement to convey property which has no existence, or to which the defendant has no title, and if the want of title was known to the plaintiff at the time of beginning the suit, the bill will not be retained for assessment of damages. One who agrees to assign to another any patents that he may obtain for improvements in certain machines, and who afterwards invents such an improvement, and, with intent to evade his agreement and to defraud the other party, procures a patent for his invention to be obtained upon the application of a third person, and to be issued to him as assignee of that person, and receives profits under it, cannot be c...
Tag this Judgment!