1
Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1880
United States v. Schurz - 102 U.S. 378 (1880) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Schurz, 102 U.S. 378 (1880) United States v. Schurz 102 U.S. 378 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 1. The Supreme Court of the District of Columbia is authorized to issue the writ of mandamus as an original process in cases where, by the principles of the common law, the petitioner is entitled to it. 2. when a patent for a part of the public lands has been regularly signed, sealed, countersigned, and duly recorded, the patentee has a perfect right to the possession thereof. 3. In the progress of the proceedings to acquire, under the laws of the United States, a title to public land, the power of the Land Department over them ceases when the last official act necessary to transfer the title to the successful claimant has been performed. 4. Title by patent from the United States is title by record, and the delivery of the instrument to the patentee is not, as in a conveyance ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1880
Mining Company v. Consolidated Mining Company - 102 U.S. 167 (1880) U.S. Supreme Court Mining Company v. Consolidated Mining Company, 102 U.S. 167 (1880) Mining Company v. Consolidated Mining Company 102 U.S. 167 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus 1. The grant of the sixteenth and thirty-sixth sections of public land to the State of California for school purposes, made by the Act of March 3, 1853, 10 Stat. 246, was not intended to cover mineral lands. Such lands were, by the settled policy of the general government, excluded from all grants. 2. A settlement within the meaning of sec. 7 of that act is not required, either in regard to the acts to be done or the qualifications of the settler, to be precisely the same as that whereby a preemption right can be secured under the Act of Sept. 4, 1841. 5 Stat. 453. 3. Whenever, at the time the government surveys of section 16 or 36 of public land in California are made, there is,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1880
Parks v. Booth - 102 U.S. 96 (1880) U.S. Supreme Court Parks v. Booth, 102 U.S. 96 (1880) Parks v. Booth 102 U.S. 96 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Syllabus 1. Reissued letters patent No. 1826, granted Nov. 29, 1864, to Jonathan L. Booth for a new and useful improvement in grain separators, are valid. 2. A specification describing an invention consisting merely of a new combination of old elements or devices which produces a new and useful result is sufficient if they be specifically named, their mode of operation given, and the result pointed out, so that those skilled in the art and the public may know the extent and nature of the claim and what the parts are which co operate to do the work claimed for the invention. 3. Where, in a suit for the infringement of letters patent for such a combination, the parts of which are not susceptible of division or separate use, the answer sets up that the complainant is not the firs...
Tag this Judgment!