Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Oct-21-1895
McCormick v. Hayes - 159 U.S. 332 (1895) U.S. Supreme Court McCormick v. Hayes, 159 U.S. 332 (1895) McCormick v. Hayes No. 37 Argued March 27-28, 1895 Decided October 21, 1895 159 U.S. 332 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IOWA Syllabus In an action in which the plaintiff claims title under the Act of September 28, 1850, c. 84, 9 Stat. 519, granting to the several states the swamp and overflowed lands in each unfit for cultivation, and the defendant claims title under the Act of May 15, 1856, c. 28, 11 Stat. 9, making a grant of lands to the State of Iowa to aid in the construction of railroads, parol evidence is inadmissible to show, in opposition to the concurrent action of federal and state officers having authority in the premises, that the lands its controversy were, in fact at the date of the act of 1850, swamp and overflowed ground. This writ of error brings up a judgment of the Supreme Court of Iowa, which affirmed a judgment of the District Court of Linn ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-20-1895
Reported in : (1895)ILR22Cal943
Hill, J.1. This is a suit by a firm of solicitors carrying on business under the style of Watkins and Co., and the legal representative of Mr. Algernon F. N. Watkins, a deceased member of the firm, for the recovery of the costs of certain proceedings in this Court, under Section 24 of Act XY of 1859. The object of those proceedings was to effect the revocation of a patent held by two persons, named Thomson and Mylne, for a sugar-crushing machine.2. The plaintiffs' case is that the first defendant, Mr. Neil Fox, consulted their firm so far back as the year 1885, with respect to the revocation of Messrs. Thomson and Mylne's patent, representing that he did so, not only on his own behalf, but also on behalf of other persons, who were interested in getting the patent set aside, and that in pursuance of his instructions the proceeding mentioned above was instituted on the 26th May 1887. In consequence, however, of the circumstance that Mr. Neil Fox was himself a licensee under the patent it...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-20-1895
Eby v. King - 158 U.S. 366 (1895) U.S. Supreme Court Eby v. King, 158 U.S. 366 (1895) Eby v. King No. 336 Argued May 1-2, 1895 Decided May 20, 1895 158 U.S. 366 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Syllabus Reissued letters patents No. 7851, granted August 21, 1877, to Henry H. Eby for an improvement in cob-carriers for cornshellers are void as being for a different invention from that described and claimed in the original letters, specification, and claim. It is doubtful whether the Commissioner of Patents has jurisdiction to consider and act upon an application for a surrender of letters patent and reissue when there is only the bare statement that the patentee wishes to surrender his patent and obtain a reissue. Whether, when a patent has been surrendered and reissued, and such reissue is held to be void, the patentee may proceed upon his original patent is considered and discussed, but is not decided. This was a bil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Oct-21-1895
Sioux City and St. Paul R. Co. v. United States - 159 U.S. 349 (1895) U.S. Supreme Court Sioux City and St. Paul R. Co. v. United States, 159 U.S. 349 (1895) Sioux City and St. Paul Railroad Company v. United States No. 20 Argued April 16-17, 1895 Decided October 21, 1895 159 U.S. 349 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA Syllabus The Sioux City and St. Paul Railroad Company having failed to complete the entire road from Sioux City to the Minnesota line, as contemplated by the Act of Congress of May 12, 1864, c. 84, 13 Stat. 72, making a grant of public land in aid of its construction, and as required by the statutes of Iowa, has not only received as many acres of public land as it could rightfully claim under that act, but has also received 2004.89 acres in excess of what it could rightfully claim. Grants of odd-numbered sections of public lands to aid in the construction of railways imply no guaranty that each section shall ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-04-1895
Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Sulzberger - 157 U.S. 1 (1895) U.S. Supreme Court Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Sulzberger, 157 U.S. 1 (1895) Bate Refrigerating Company v. Sulzberger No. 687 Argued November 15-16, 19, 1894 Decided March 4, 1895 157 U.S. 1 CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus The provision in Rev.Stat. 4887 respecting a "patent granted for an invention which has been previously patented in a foreign country" refers to foreign patents granted previously to the issue of letters patent for the same invention by the United States, and not to foreign patents granted previously to the application for the American letters. When such foreign letters issue before the United States letters issue, the American patent is so limited as to expire at the same time with the foreign patent having the shortest term, but in no case is it to be in force more than seventeen years. When the language used in a statute is plain and unambiguous, a r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-03-1895
Wisconsin Central R. Co. v. Forsythe - 159 U.S. 46 (1895) U.S. Supreme Court Wisconsin Central R. Co. v. Forsythe, 159 U.S. 46 (1895) Wisconsin Central Railroad Company v. Forsythe No. 238 Argued March 28-29, 1895 Decided June 3, 1895 159 U.S. 46 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN Syllabus The land in controversy in this case is within the place limits of the road of the plaintiff in error, and was subject to the full control of Congress at the time of the grant made by section 3 of the Act of May 5, 1854, c. 80, 13, Stat. 66, and it passed by operation of that grant notwithstanding the fact that it was withdrawn by the Land Department in 1856 and 1859 in order to satisfy the grant made by the Act of June 3, 1856, c. 43, 11 Stat. 20. Every act of Congress making a grant of public land is to be treated both Page 159 U. S. 47 as a law and a grant, and the intent of Congress, when ascertained, is to control in the interpret...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-01-1895
Orchard v. Alexander - 157 U.S. 372 (1895) U.S. Supreme Court Orchard v. Alexander, 157 U.S. 372 (1895) Orchard v. Alexander Nos. 192-193 Argued and submitted March 13, 1895 Decided April 1, 1895 157 U.S. 372 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON Syllabus The Commissioner of the General Land Office may direct the proper local land officer to hear and pass upon charges of fraud in the final proof of a preemption claim upon which the requisite cash entry has been paid, and has jurisdiction to review the judgment of the local land officer in respect thereof, and the Secretary of the Interior has jurisdiction to review such judgment of the Commissioner, and to order such an entry, shown to be fraudulent, to be cancelled. While these two cases differ in their particular facts, they agree in the questions involved, and for convenience may be considered together. As the opinion of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington was filed in the second case, the speci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-14-1895
Reported in : (1896)ILR23Cal87
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. The two questions which have been referred to this Bench do not depend on the same considerations, and I prefer to answer the second before the first.2. If the plaintiff in the case of Dhoronidhur Sen v. Wajidunnissa I.L.R. 16 Cal. 708 had, when he brought his suit, a cause of action against the defendant, which he was then entitled to enforce against him, but the evidence to enable him to establish which was then, defective, because his title had not been registered, and if such defect of proof had been cured by registration before the final hearing, then I think the case of Dhoronidhnr Sen v. Wajidunnissa Khatoon I.L.R. 16 Cal. 708 was wrongly decided. If, on the other hand, the plaintiff had no cause of action against the defendant, which, when he brought his suit, he had the right to enforce by action against him, then in my opinion the case was rightly decided, as such a defect cannot be cured by anything which is done after the suit has been commenced.3....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-07-1895
Campbell v. Haverhill - 155 U.S. 610 (1895) U.S. Supreme Court Campbell v. Haverhill, 155 U.S. 610 (1895) Campbell v. Haverhill No. 87 Argued November 21-22, 1894 Decided January 7, 1895 155 U.S. 610 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Syllabus Where a party excepts to a ruling of the court, but, not standing upon his exception, elects to proceed with the trial, he thereby waives it. The statutes of limitation of the several states apply to actions at law for the infringement of letters patent. This was an action at law for the infringement of letters patent No. 42,920, issued May 24, 1864, to James Knibbs for an improvement in fire engine pumps, of which patent plaintiffs were the assignees. The patent expired May 24, 1881. The action was begun May 20, 1887, in the name of Ruel Philbrook and several others, among whom was Christopher Page 155 U. S. 611 C. Campbell, the plaintiff in error, claiming to be at different times a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-27-1895
Clark v. Reeder - 158 U.S. 505 (1895) U.S. Supreme Court Clark v. Reeder, 158 U.S. 505 (1895) Clark v. Reeder No. 262 Argued April 22-23, 1895 Decided May 27, 1895 158 U.S. 505 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA Syllabus C. contracted in writing in 1884 with R. to purchase from him about 50,000 acres of land in West Virginia, which had been originally granted by the Commonwealth of Virginia to D. in 1796, and which R. had acquired in 1870 from persons who had purchased it at a sale for nonpayment of taxes, made in 1857, after the death of D. The contract was by the acre, at so much per acre. The title was to be examined by a lawyer of West Virginia, the attorney of C., and upon his certifying it to be good, the first payments were to be made. The total number of acres within the defined limits were agreed to by both parties, but a farther survey was to be made at the expense of C. in order to ascertain what tracts and how ma...
Tag this Judgment!