Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1879
Trademark Cases - 100 U.S. 82 (1879) U.S. Supreme Court Trademark Cases, 100 U.S. 82 (1879) Trademark Cases 100 U.S. 82 Syllabus 1. Property in trademarks has long been recognized and protected by the common law and by the statutes of the several states, and does not derive its existence from the act of Congress providing for the registration of them in the Patent Office. 2. A trademark is neither an invention, a discovery, nor a writing within the meaning of the eighth clause of the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, which confers on Congress power to secure for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. 3. If an act of Congress can in any case be extended, as a regulation of commerce, to trademarks, it must be limited to their use in "commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." 4. The legislation of Congress in regard to trademarks is not, in its...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1879
Planing Machine Company v. Keith - 101 U.S. 479 (1879) U.S. Supreme Court Planing Machine Company v. Keith, 101 U.S. 479 (1879) Planing Machine Company v. Keith 101 U.S. 479 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Syllabus 1. The action of the Commissioner of Patents in granting letters patent does not conclude the question whether there was not an abandonment. A person charged with infringing them, may show that before they were issued the patentee had abandoned his invention. The intention to abandon may be manifested otherwise than by words. 2. There may be an abandonment after or before an application for letters has been made and rejected, or withdrawn. 3. An inventor must comply with the statutory conditions. He cannot without cause hold his application pending during a long period of years, leaving the public uncertain whether he intends ever to prosecute it. 4. The facts concerning the application for letters patent No. 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1879
Litchfield v. County of Webster - 101 U.S. 773 (1879) U.S. Supreme Court Litchfield v. County of Webster, 101 U.S. 773 (1879) Litchfield v. County of Webster 101 U.S. 773 APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF IOWA Syllabus 1. Wolsey v. Chapman, supra, p. 101 U. S. 755 , reaffirmed. 2. This Court adhering to the construction given by the Supreme Court of Iowa to the revenue laws of that state touching the time when lands located or entered under the laws of the United States or purchased from the state, become taxable, holds that the lands, the title whereto by the joint resolution of Congress approved March 2, 1861, 12 Stat. 251, passed to bona fide purchasers of that state, were not subject to taxation prior to the year 1862. 3. Where the state claimed adversely to the true owner a part of said lands, and there was a controversy whether the title to the remainder had passed from the United States, and, on that account, the proper auth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1879
Anthony v. County of Jasper - 101 U.S. 693 (1879) U.S. Supreme Court Anthony v. County of Jasper, 101 U.S. 693 (1879) Anthony v. County of Jasper 101 U.S. 693 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI Syllabus 1. The act of the General Assembly of Missouri entitled "An Act to provide for the registration of bonds issued by counties, cities, and incorporated towns, and to limit the issue thereof," approved March 30, 1872, applies to bonds issued under the act approved March 23, 1808, commonly known as "The Township Aid Act." 2. The said Act of March 30, 1872, declares that before a municipal bond thereafter issued shall obtain validity or be negotiated, it shall be presented to the state auditor, who shall register it and certify by endorsement that all the conditions of the laws and of the contract under which it was ordered to be issued have been complied with. Held that unless the bonds are so endorsed, a holder of them cannot ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1879
Wood v. Carpenter - 101 U.S. 135 (1879) U.S. Supreme Court Wood v. Carpenter, 101 U.S. 135 (1879) Wood v. Carpenter 101 U.S. 135 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF INDIANA Syllabus The statutes of Indiana provide that "an action for relief against frauds shall be commenced within six years," and that "if any person liable to an action shall conceal the fact from the person entitled thereto, the action may be commenced at any time within the period of limitation after the discovery of the cause of action." A., who had recovered judgment in 1860 in a court of that state against B., brought suit in 1812 alleging that the latter, in 1858, in order to defraud his creditors, confessed judgments, encumbered his property, and in 1862 transferred his real and personal estate to sundry persons who held the same in secret trust for him; that on being arrested in 1862 upon final process to compel the payment of A.'s judgment, he deposed that he was not w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1879
Hall v. Russell - 101 U.S. 503 (1879) U.S. Supreme Court Hall v. Russell, 101 U.S. 503 (1879) Hall v. Russell 101 U.S. 503 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON Syllabus 1. The Act of Congress approved Sept. 27, 1850, 9 Stat. 498, commonly known as the Donation Act, granted to each person having the requisite qualifications the right to settle upon and cultivate a tract of public land in Oregon not in any case exceeding in extent one section, or six hundred and forty acres, in order that he might, upon complying with all the prescribed conditions and making proof thereof, be entitled to a patent for such tract. 2. The title to the soil does not vest in the settler before the conditions have been fully performed. Quaere, does it pass from the United States until the requisite final proof of their performance be made? 3. A., an unmarried man, settled, in 1852, upon a half-section of public land in Oregon, and, after residing thereon le...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1879
United States v. Clamorgan - 101 U.S. 822 (1879) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Clamorgan, 101 U.S. 822 (1879) United States v. Clamorgan 101 U.S. 822 APPEALS FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI Syllabus 1. The court reaffirms its rulings in Scull v. United States, 98 U. S. 410 , as to the nature of the title whereon a suit can, under sec. 11 of the Act of June 30, 1860, 12 Stat. 85, be maintained against the United States for lands claimed under a grant from the French or the Spanish authorities in Louisiana. 2. The claim in this cause, founded upon an alleged grant made at St. Louis by Trudeau, Lieutenant Governor, March 3, 1797, examined and held not to be within the provisions of that section. This was a suit for lands in Missouri brought against the United States by parties claiming under James Clamorgan, who presented his petition -- which they filed as an exhibit -- dated at St. Louis, March 1, 1797, to Don Zenon T...
Tag this Judgment!