Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-03-1890
Wisconsin Central R. Co. v. Price County - 133 U.S. 496 (1890) U.S. Supreme Court Wisconsin Central R. Co. v. Price County, 133 U.S. 496 (1890) Wisconsin Central Railroad Company v. Price County No. 76 Argued and submitted November 6-7, 1889 Decided March 3, 1890 133 U.S. 496 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WISCONSIN Syllabus No state has power to tax the property of the United States within its limits. Where Congress has prescribed conditions upon which portions of the public domain may be alienated, and has provided that upon the performance of the conditions, a patent shall issue to the donee or purchaser, and all such conditions have been complied with, and the tract to be alienated is distinctly defined, and nothing remains but to issue the patent, then the donee or purchaser is to be treated as the beneficial owner of the land, holding it as his own property, subject to state and local taxation; but when an official executive act prescribed by law remains ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-19-1890
Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas Ry. Co. - 135 U.S. 641 (1890) U.S. Supreme Court Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas Ry. Co., 135 U.S. 641 (1890) Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas Railway Company No. 664 Argued March 12, 1890 Decided May 19, 1890 135 U.S. 641 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Syllabus The Act of Congress of July 4, 1884, 23 Stat. 73, c. 179, granting a right of way through the Indian Territory to the Southern Kansas Railway Company, for a railroad, telegraph and telephone line, is a valid exercise of the power of Congress to regulate commerce among the several states and with the Indian tribes. The Cherokee Nation filed in the court below a bill of complaint, seeking a decree enjoining the Southern Kansas Railway Company from entering upon the lands of that nation for the purpose of constructing its proposed railway, and, if that relief could not be granted, then that its bill might be treated as an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-28-1890
Iron Silver Mining Co. v. Campbell - 135 U.S. 286 (1890) U.S. Supreme Court Iron Silver Mining Co. v. Campbell, 135 U.S. 286 (1890) Iron Silver Mining Co. v. Campbell No. 22 Argued March 25-26, 1890 Decided April 28, 1890 135 U.S. 286 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Syllabus A lode patent, issued subsequently to the issue of a placer patent of a tract within whose metes and bounds the lode patent is located, is not conclusive evidence that the lode was so known at the time of the issue of the placer patent as to authorize the issue of the lode patent. Where two parties have patents for the same tract of land, and the question in a judicial proceeding is as to the superiority of title under those patents, and the decision depends upon extrinsic facts not shown by the patents, it is competent to establish it by proof of those facts. The provisions in Rev.Stat. 2325, 2326, as to adverse claims to a lode, for which a patent is ask...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-19-1890
Cornell University v. Fiske - 136 U.S. 152 (1890) U.S. Supreme Court Cornell University v. Fiske, 136 U.S. 152 (1890) Cornell University v. Fiske No. 1224 Argued April 8-9, 1890 Decided May 19, 1890 136 U.S. 152 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Syllabus Under the will of a testatrix who resided in New York, Cornell University, a corporation of that state, was made her residuary legatee. It was provided in its charter that it might hold real and personal property to an amount not exceeding $3,000,000 in the aggregate. The Court of Appeals of New York having held that it had no power to take or hold any more real and personal property than $3,000,000 in the aggregate at the time of the death of the testatrix, and that, under the jurisprudence of New York, her heirs at law and next of kin had a right to avail themselves of that fact, if it existed, in the controversy about the disposition of the residuary estate, this Court held that such decision of the Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-03-1890
Boesch v. Graeff - 133 U.S. 697 (1890) U.S. Supreme Court Boesch v. Graeff, 133 U.S. 697 (1890) Boesch v. Graeff No. 1408 Submitted January 10, 1890 Decided March 3, 1890 133 U.S. 697 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus The refusal of a circuit court to grant a rehearing is not subject to review here. S., by an assignment absolute in form and for an expressed sum and "other valuable considerations," assigned to G. an interest in letters patent. G., by a writing executed the following day, made a further agreement with S. as to times and modes and amounts of payments, and further agreed that if he should fail to carry out his said agreements, the title Page 133 U. S. 698 was to revert to S.. Held that the transfer was absolute, subject to be defeated by failure to perform the condition subsequent. When an invention patented in a foreign country is also patented in the United States, articles containing it ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Dec-15-1890
Fond du Lac County v. May - 137 U.S. 395 (1890) U.S. Supreme Court Fond du Lac County v. May, 137 U.S. 395 (1890) Fond du Lac County v. May No. 61 Argued November 26, 1890 Decided December 15, 1890 137 U.S. 395 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN Syllabus Letters patent No. 25,662, granted to Edwin May, October 4, 1859, for an "improvement in the construction of prisons," are invalid. The novel idea set forth in the patent was to interpose a grating between Page 137 U. S. 396 the jailer and the prisoners at every stage of opening and shutting a door. The mechanism of the patent, except the grating, was old. As to claim 1, the angle door being old, its combination with a lock or bolt was not new or patentable. As to claims 3 and 4, the mechanical devices were old, and operated in the same way either with or without the grating. Introducing the grating did not make a patentable combination, but only an aggregation. At l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-03-1890
Corbin v. Gould - 133 U.S. 308 (1890) U.S. Supreme Court Corbin v. Gould, 133 U.S. 308 (1890) Corbin v. Gould No. 131 Argued November 22, 1889 Decided February 3, 1890 133 U.S. 308 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN Syllabus The trademark for tea (No. 9952) registered in the Patent Office by Ingraham, Corbin & May December 27, 1881, was for the combination of the figure of a diamond and the words "The Tycoon Tea" enclosed in it, and its registration conferred no exclusive right to the use of the word "Tycoon" considered by itself. This is a suit in equity brought in the court below by Calvin R. Corbin and Horatio N. May, co-partners, as Corbin, May & Co., doing business in Chicago, against Walter J. Gould, Edward Telfer, David D. Cady, and L. F. Thompson, co-partners as W. J. Gould & Co., doing business in Detroit, for the alleged infringement of a trademark. The bill, filed on the 24th of September, 1885, alleged subst...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-05-1890
Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Berkshire Nat'l Bank - 135 U.S. 342 (1890) U.S. Supreme Court Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Berkshire Nat'l Bank, 135 U.S. 342 (1890) Yale Lock Manufacturing Company v. Berkshire National Bank Nos. 261, 262 Argued April 11, 14-15, 1890 Decided May 5, 1890 135 U.S. 342 APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Syllabus Claim 3 of reissued letters patent No. 7947, granted November 13, 1577 to James Sargent, for an "improvement in combined time lock, combination lock, and bolt work for safes," the original patent, No. 195,539, having been granted to Sargent, September 25, 1877; namely, "3. The combination, with the bolt work of a safe or vault door, of a combination or key lock controllable mechanically from the exterior of said door, with a time lock having a lock bolt or obstruction for locking and unlocking controllable from the interior of the door, both of said locks being arranged so as to rest against or connect...
Tag this Judgment!