1
Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1878
Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. United States - 99 U.S. 402 (1878) U.S. Supreme Court Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. United States, 99 U.S. 402 (1878) Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. United States 99 U.S. 402 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus 1. The act entitled "An Act to aid in the construction of a railroad and telegraph line from the Missouri River to the Pacific Ocean and to secure to the government the use of the same for postal, military, and other purposes," approved July 1, 1862, 12 Stat. 489, after providing for the issue of patents for land and of bonds to the Union Pacific Railroad Company and other companies from time to time, as successive sections of their respective roads should be completed, requires the companies to perform all government transportation of mails, troops &c.;, and to credit the compensation therefor on the government loan, and then adds that "after said road is completed, until said bonds and interest are paid, at least five percentum of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1878
Bates v. Coe - 98 U.S. 31 (1878) U.S. Supreme Court Bates v. Coe, 98 U.S. 31 (1878) Bates v. Coe 98 U.S. 31 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Syllabus 1. Persons sued as infringers may, if they comply with the statutory condition as to notice, give the special defenses mentioned in the Patent Act in evidence, under the general issue. 2. Such notices, in a suit in equity, may be given in the answer; and the provision is, that if any one of those defenses is proved, the judgment or decree shall be in favor of the defending party, with costs. 3. Defenses of the kind, where the invention consists in a combination of old elements, incapable of division or separate use, must be addressed to the entire invention, and not merely to separate parts of the thing patented. 4. Pursuant to that rule, the respondents alleged in their answer four of the statutory defenses, besides the denial of infringement: 1. that the complainant is not ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1878
Sinking Fund Cases - 99 U.S. 700 (1878) U.S. Supreme Court Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U.S. 700 (1878) Sinking Fund Cases 99 U.S. 700 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus 1. So far as it establishes in the Treasury of the United States a sinking fund, the Act of Congress approved May 7, 1878, 20 Stat. 56, entitled "An Act to alter and amend the act entitled 'An Act to aid in the construction of a railroad and telegraph line from the Missouri River to the Pacific Ocean, and to secure to the government the use of the same for postal, military, and other purposes,' approved July 1, 1862, and also to alter and amend the act of Congress approved July 2, 1864, in amendment of said first-named act," is not unconstitutional. 2. The debt of the respective companies therein named to the United States is not paid by depositing and investing the fund in the manner prescribed by that act, 3. Retaining in the fund the one-half of the earnings for services rendered to the government by the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1878
Powder Company v. Powder Works - 98 U.S. 126 (1878) U.S. Supreme Court Powder Company v. Powder Works, 98 U.S. 126 (1878) Powder Company v. Powder Works 98 U.S. 126 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus 1. Reissued letters patent must be for the same invention as that which formed the subject of the original letters, or for a part thereof when divisional reissues are granted. They must not contain any thing substantially new or different. 2. Original letters for a process will not support reissued letters for a composition unless it is the result of the process and the invention of the one involves the invention of the other. 3. Letters granted for certain processes of exploding nitroglycerine will not support reissued letters for a composition of nitroglycerine and gunpowder or other substances, even though the original application claimed the invention of the process and the compound. They are distinct inventions. 4. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1878
Hartwell v. Tilghman - 99 U.S. 547 (1878) U.S. Supreme Court Hartwell v. Tilghman, 99 U.S. 547 (1878) Hartwell v. Tilghman 99 U.S. 547 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus 1. A suit between citizens of the same state cannot be sustained in the circuit court as arising under the patent laws of the United States where the defendant admits the validity and his use of the plaintiff's letters patent and a subsisting contract is shown governing the rights of the parties in the use of the invention. 2. Relief in such a suit is founded on the contract, and not on those laws. The court below had no jurisdiction. The parties were all citizens of the same state. The suit was founded upon a contract between them, and did not arise under a statute of the United States. Wilson v. Sandford, 10 How. 99; Hartshorn v. Day, 19 How. 211; Slemmer's Appeal, 58 Pa.St. 164; Blanchard v. Sprague, 1 Cliff. 288; Goodyear v. Day, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1878
Platt v. Union Pacific Railroad Company - 99 U.S. 48 (1878) U.S. Supreme Court Platt v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 99 U.S. 48 (1878) Platt v. Union Pacific Railroad Company 99 U.S. 48 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA Syllabus 1. By the third section of the Act of Congress approved July 1, 1862, 12 Stat. 489, incorporating the Union Pacific Railroad Company, lands were granted to the company "for the purpose of aiding in the construction of the railroad and telegraph line, and to secure the safe and speedy transportation of the mails, troops, munitions of war, and public stores thereon," and it was enacted that all such lands "not sold or disposed of" by the company before the expiration of three years after the completion of the entire road should be subject to settlement and preemption like other lands. Upon a consideration of this and other provisions of the act and of the Amendatory Act of July 2, 1864, 13 id. 356, He...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1878
Missouri, K. & T. Railway Co. v. Kansas P. Ry. Co. - 97 U.S. 491 (1878) U.S. Supreme Court Missouri, K. & T. Railway Co. v. Kansas P. Ry. Co., 97 U.S. 491 (1878) Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway Company v. Kansas Pacific Railway Company 97 U.S. 491 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS Syllabus 1. Subject to certain reservations and exceptions, the Act of Congress of July 1, 1862, 12 Stat. 489, "to aid in the construction of a railroad and telegraph line from the Missouri River to the Pacific Ocean, and to secure to the government the use of the same for postal, military, and other purposes," passed to the companies therein named a present interest in every odd-numbered section of public land within specified limits on each side of the lines of their respective roads. When those lines were definitely established, the title of the companies acquired precision, and became attached to such sections. 2. Said act having been amended by that of July 2, 1864, 13 Sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1878
United States v. Central Pacific Railroad Co. - 99 U.S. 449 (1878) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Central Pacific Railroad Co., 99 U.S. 449 (1878) United States v. Central Pacific Railroad Co. 99 U.S. 449 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus 1. This case, in all material respects, involves the same questions as Union Pacific Railroad Company v. United States, supra, p. 99 U. S. 402 , and the court adheres to the conclusion there announced as to the time when the road must be considered as completed, so as to render the company thereafter liable to pay annually five percent of the net earnings of the road for the purposes mentioned in the sixth section of the Act of July 1, 1882. 12 Stat. 489. 2. The rulings in that case upon the question of the earnings and expenditures of the road, and upon the principles by which the amount of net earnings is to be ascertained and in what manner paid, reaffirmed. The facts are sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1878
Airhart v. Massieu - 98 U.S. 491 (1878) U.S. Supreme Court Airhart v. Massieu, 98 U.S. 491 (1878) Airhart v. Massieu, 98 U.S. 491 (1878) 98 U.S. 491 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Syllabus 1. A Mexican was not, by the revolution which resulted in the independence of Texas or by her Constitution of March 17, 1836, or her laws subsequently enacted, divested of his title to lands in that state, but he retained the right to alienate and transmit them to his heirs, and the latter are entitled to sue for and recover them. 2. The division of a country and the maintenance of independent governments over its different parts do not of themselves divest the rights which the citizens of either have to property situate within the territory of the other. 3. That Constitution, although declaring generally that aliens shall not hold land in Texas except by title emanating directly from the government, did not divest their title, for it adds...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1878
Hosmer v. Wallace - 97 U.S. 575 (1878) U.S. Supreme Court Hosmer v. Wallace, 97 U.S. 575 (1878) Hosmer v. Wallace 97 U.S. 575 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus 1. Pending a proceeding in a tribunal of the United States for the confirmation of a claim to lands in California under a Mexican grant, no portion of them embraced within the boundaries designated in the grant is open to settlement under the preemption laws, although, upon the final survey of the claim when confirmed, there may be a surplus within those boundaries. 2. Until a segregation of the quantity granted is made by an approved official survey, third parties cannot interfere with the grantee's possession of the lands and limit it to any particular place within those boundaries. 3. Between March 1, 1856, and May 30, 1862, unsurveyed public lands in California were not subject to settlement under the preemption laws. Since the latter date, they, as well as surveyed lands, have been so subject. 4. ...
Tag this Judgment!