Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1846
Stimpson v. West Chester Railroad Company - 45 U.S. 380 (1846) U.S. Supreme Court Stimpson v. West Chester Railroad Company, 45 U.S. 4 How. 380 380 (1846) Stimpson v. West Chester Railroad Company 5 U.S. (4 How.) 380 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR EAST PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus The practice of excepting generally to a charge of the court to the jury without setting out specifically the points excepted to censured. The writ of error not dismissed only on account of the peculiar circumstances of the case. Where a defective patent had been surrendered and a new one taken out, and the patentee brought an action for a violation of his patent right, laying the infringement at a date subsequent to that of the renewed patent, proof of the use of the thing patented during the interval between the original and renewed patents will not defeat the action. The seventh section of the Act of March 3, 1839, has exclusive reference to an original application for a patent, an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1846
Les Bois v. Bramwell - 45 U.S. 449 (1846) U.S. Supreme Court Les Bois v. Bramwell, 45 U.S. 4 How. 449 449 (1846) Les Bois v. Bramwell 45 U.S. (4 How.) 449 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MISSOURI Syllabus A private survey of land, claimed under an old Spanish concession and presented to the board of commissioners appointed under the act of 1805, is not conclusive against the party presenting it to show the boundaries of the claim, but is proper evidence to go to the jury, who are to decide upon its limits. Under the acts of 1824, 1826, and 1828, the District Court of Missouri was authorized to receive petitions of claimants to land, until 26 May, 1829. In 1831, when claims which had not been presented were standing under a bar, Congress confirmed the title of the inhabitants of the Town of St. Louis to the adjacent commons. This act was valid, unless the opposing claimant then possessed a vested interest which was protected by the Louisian...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1846
Downes v. Scott - 45 U.S. 500 (1846) U.S. Supreme Court Downes v. Scott, 45 U.S. 4 How. 500 500 (1846) Downes v. Scott 45 U.S. (4 How.) 500 ERROR TO THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA Syllabus The second section of the Act of 29 May, 1830, providing, that "If two or more persons be settled upon the same quarter-section, the same may be divided between the two first actual settlers if by a north and south or east and west line the settlement or improvement of each can be included in a half-quarter-section," refers only to tracts of land containing one hundred and sixty acres, and does not operate upon one containing only one hundred and thirty-three acres. Therefore, where tenants in common of a tract of one hundred and thirty-three acres applied to a state court for a partition under the above act, the judgment of that court cannot be reviewed by this Court when brought up by writ of error under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act, because...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1846
Wilson v. Rousseau - 45 U.S. 646 (1846) U.S. Supreme Court Wilson v. Rousseau, 45 U.S. 4 How. 646 646 (1846) Wilson v. Rousseau 45 U.S. (4 How.) 646 ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus The eighteenth section of the patent act of 1836 authorized the extension of a patent on the application of the executor or administrator of a deceased patentee. Such an extension does not inure to the benefit of assignees under the original patent, but to the benefit of the administrator (when granted to an administrator), in his capacity as such. But those assignees who were in the use of the patented machine at the time of the renewal have still a right to use it. The extension could be applied for and obtained by the administrator, although the original patentee had, in his lifetime, disposed of all his interest in the then existing patent. Such sale did not carry anything beyond the term of the or...
Tag this Judgment!