Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1818
Evans v. Eaton - 16 U.S. 454 (1818) U.S. Supreme Court Evans v. Eaton, 16 U.S. 3 Wheat. 454 454 (1818) Evans v. Eaton 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 454 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus Under the sixth section of the patent law of 1793, ch. 156, the defendant pleaded the general issue and gave notice that he would prove at the trial that the machine for the use of which, without license, the suit was brought had been used previous to the alleged invention of the plaintiff in several places which were specified in the notice, or in some of them, "and also at sundry other places in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and elsewhere in the United States." The defendant having given evidence as to some of the places specified, offered evidence as to others not specified. Held, that this evidence was admissible. But the powers of the court in such a case are sufficient to prevent and will be exercised to prevent the patentee from being injured by surprise. Testimony o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-03-1818
Minnesota v. Lane - 247 U.S. 243 (1818) U.S. Supreme Court Minnesota v. Lane, 247 U.S. 243 (1918) Minnesota v. Lane No. 20, Original Motion to dismiss Argued April 15, 1918 Decided June 3, 1818 247 U.S. 243 I N EQUITY Syllabus An act of Congress granted the "undisposed of" lands in certain sections to a state, saving "vested rights" of others existing at its date. Part of the described tracts, here in question, within the indemnity limits of the Northern Pacific had previously been selected by that railroad and by it sold to purchasers in good faith. After the date of the act, the selections were cancelled as being founded on improper bases, but the Land Department, upon fully hearing the state, allowed an application of the purchasers' assignee, made meanwhile, to purchase the land in question from the United States, and secure patents therefor, under the Adjustment Act of March 3, 1887. Held that the decision was not arbitrary, and that a suit against the Secretary of ...
Tag this Judgment!