1
Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1881
Root v. Railway Company - 105 U.S. 189 (1881) U.S. Supreme Court Root v. Railway Company, 105 U.S. 189 (1881) Root v. Railway Company 105 U.S. 189 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Syllabus A. to whom had been assigned letters patent, filed, after the expiration of them, which took place July 6, 1873, his bill against B., charging that the latter had during their term infringed them by using the patented invention, whereby he realized gains, profits, and savings which he should be compelled to account for and pay to the complainant. The bill was, on demurrer, dismissed. Held that the decree below is proper, the bill being merely for an account of profits and damages against an infringes, and it not appearing from the case thereby made that any ground of equitable jurisdiction exists, or that A. has not a complete remedy at law whereby damages for the wrongs complained of can be recovered. The facts are stated in the opi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1881
Morrison v. Stalnaker - 104 U.S. 213 (1881) U.S. Supreme Court Morrison v. Stalnaker, 104 U.S. 213 (1881) Morrison v. Stalnaker 104 U.S. 213 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEBRASKA Syllabus On Jan. 18, 1871, A., a preemptor, settled upon part of an even-numbered section of land which, although previously offered at public sale, was at that date withdrawn from private entry, it being within the grant to the Burlington and Missouri River Railroad Company. Held that under the second section of the Act of July 14, 1870, c. 272, 16 Stat. 279, he was entitled to the period of eighteen months from the time limited for filing his declaratory statement within which to make payment and proof. This was an action brought in the District Court of Cass County, Nebraska, by Morrison to recover the possession of a tract of eighty acres, being part of an even-numbered section of land situate in that county. Morrison claimed under a patent from the United States dated May 10, 18...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1881
Smelting Company v. Kemp - 104 U.S. 636 (1881) U.S. Supreme Court Smelting Company v. Kemp, 104 U.S. 636 (1881) Smelting Company v. Kemp 104 U.S. 636 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Syllabus 1. A patent, duly signed, countersigned, and sealed, for public lands which, at the time it was issued, the Land Department had, under the statute, authority to convey cannot be collaterally impeached in an action at law, and the finding of the department touching the existence of certain facts, or the performance of certain antecedent acts, upon which the lawful exercise of that authority may in a particular case depend, cannot in a court of law be questioned. 2. If in the issuing of a patent the officers of that department take mistaken views of the law, or draw erroneous conclusions from the evidence, or act from either imperfect views of duty or corrupt motives, the party aggrieved cannot set up such matters in a court of law to defeat the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1881
Corbin v. County of Black Hawk - 105 U.S. 659 (1881) U.S. Supreme Court Corbin v. County of Black Hawk, 105 U.S. 659 (1881) Corbin v. County of Black Hawk 105 U.S. 659 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF IOWA Syllabus 1. As a suit to compel the specific performance of a contract, or to enforce its other stipulations, is a suit to recover the contents of a chose in action, it was not, under sec. 829, Rev.Stat., maintainable in the circuit court by an assignee if it could not have been prosecuted there by the assignor had no assignment been made. 2. The paper writing ( infra, p. 105 U. S. 661 ) is sufficient in form to assign the contract therein mentioned, and where the assignee of such contracts, each executed for a separate parcel of school lands in Iowa by the proper counts officer to a different assignor, tendered the amount due on them and brought suit for a deed of conveyance for the lands, held, 1. that his assignor, who claim an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1881
Ager v. Murray - 105 U.S. 126 (1881) U.S. Supreme Court Ager v. Murray, 105 U.S. 126 (1881) Ager v. Murray 105 U.S. 126 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus A patent right may be subjected by bill in equity to the payment of a judgment debt of the patentee. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court. MR. JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a bill in equity by a judgment creditor to subject to the payment of his debt the interest of his debtor in patent rights. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia upon bill and answers, by which it appears to be as follows: Page 105 U. S. 127 On the 10th of April, 1876, Talbot C. Murray, in an action at law upon a promissory note, recovered judgment against Wilson Ager for the sum of $2,164.66, with interest and costs. Upon that judgment a writ of fieri facias was issued, and returned nulla bona. Wilson Ager had no real or personal property in the Dis...
Tag this Judgment!