0 Patents Act 1970 39 of 1970 Section 150 Security for Costs - Court Uk Supreme Court - Year 1840 - Judgments | SooperKanoon Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents act 1970 39 of 1970 section 150 security for costs Court: uk supreme court Year: 1840

1840

Philadelphia and Trenton R. Co. Vs. Stimpson

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-01-1840

Philadelphia & Trenton R. Co. v. Stimpson - 39 U.S. 448 (1840) U.S. Supreme Court Philadelphia & Trenton R. Co. v. Stimpson, 39 U.S. 14 Pet. 448 448 (1840) Philadelphia & Trenton Railroad Company v. Stimpson 39 U.S. (14 Pet.) 448 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus Action for the violation of a patent right, granted to the patentee for "a new and useful improvement in turning short curves on railroads." On 26 September, 1835, a second patent was granted, the original patent, granted in 1831, having been surrendered and cancelled on account of a defective specification, the second patent being for fourteen years from the date of the original patent. The second patent was in the precise form of the original, except the recital of the fact that the former patent was cancelled "on account of a defective specification" and the statement of the time the second patent was to begin to run. It was objected that ...

Tag this Judgment!

1840

Lessee of Pollard's Heirs Vs. Kibbe

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-01-1840

Lessee of Pollard's Heirs v. Kibbe - 39 U.S. 353 (1840) U.S. Supreme Court Lessee of Pollard's Heirs v. Kibbe, 39 U.S. 14 Pet. 353 353 (1840) Lessee of Pollard's Heirs v. Kibbe * 39 U.S. (14 Pet.) 353 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA Syllabus Action of ejectment in the state court of Alabama for a lot of ground in the City of Mobile. The plaintiff claimed the title to the lot under an act of Congress, and the decision of the state court was against the right and title so set up and claimed. A writ of error was prosecuted to the Supreme Court of Alabama. It was held that this case was embraced by the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which gives this Court jurisdiction to revise the judgment of the state court in such cases. The act of Congress under which title was claimed being a private act and for the benefit of the City of Mobile and certain individuals, it is fair to presume it was passed with reference to the particular claims of indi...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //