Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-24-1893
Curtner v. United States - 149 U.S. 662 (1893) U.S. Supreme Court Curtner v. United States, 149 U.S. 662 (1893) Curtner v. United States No. 258 Argued April 24-25, 1893 Decided May 1893 149 U.S. 662 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus When, in a suit in equity brought by the United States to set aside and cancel patents of public land issued by the Land Department, no fraud being charged, it appears that the suit is brought for the benefit of private persons and that the government has no interest in the result, the United States are barred from bringing the suit if the persons for whose benefit the suit is brought would be barred. When a land-grant railroad company conveys a part of its grant without having received a patent from the United States, and it appears that the United States had issued a patent of the tract to a state, as part of a land grant to the state, and the state parts with its title to an ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-24-1893
Chandler v. Calumet & Hecla Mining Co. - 149 U.S. 79 (1893) U.S. Supreme Court Chandler v. Calumet & Hecla Mining Co., 149 U.S. 79 (1893) Chandler v. Calumet and Hecla Mining Company No. 202 Argued April 6-7, 1893 Decided April 24, 1893 149 U.S. 79 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN Syllabus Swamp lands in Michigan which were not embraced in the list of such lands made by the Surveyor General February 12, 1853, as coming within the provisions of the grant to the September 28, 1850, 9 Stat. 514, c. 84, which list was approved by the Secretary of the Interior January 11, 1854, and which lands were patented to the state March 3, 1856, as so listed and approved, were not included within the said grant of September 28, 1850. These several official acts, by the proper officers, operated as an adjudication as to what were swamp lands within the grant of September 28, 1850, and to exclude contradictory parol evidence. The grant by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-10-1893
Ide v. Ball Engine Co. - 149 U.S. 550 (1893) U.S. Supreme Court Ide v. Ball Engine Co., 149 U.S. 550 (1893) Ide v. Ball Engine Company No. 227 Argued April 21, 1893 Decided May 10, 1893 149 U.S. 550 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Syllabus Letters patent No. 301,720, issued July 8, 1884, to Albert L. Ide for new and useful improvements in steam engine governors are void for want of novelty in the invention claimed in the specification. Page 149 U. S. 551 This was a bill in equity for the infringement of letters patent No. 301,720, issued July 8, 1884, to the plaintiff, Ide, for a steam engine governor. Another patent, No. 308,498, issued to the same party November 25, 1884, was originally embraced in the bill, but upon the trial in the court below, the charge relative to this patent was not pressed, and the case was rested wholly upon No. 301,720. "This invention," said the patentee, in his specification, "relates...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-06-1893
United States v. California & Oregon Land Co. - 148 U.S. 31 (1893) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. California & Oregon Land Co., 148 U.S. 31 (1893) United States v. California and Oregon Land Company No. 1073 Argued January 10-11, 1893 Decided March 6, 1893 148 U.S. 31 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The former decision in this case, 140 U. S. 140 U.S. 599, imported that the pleas were sufficient in law, and remanded the case only for an inquiry as to their truthfulness. A defendant in equity may let the facts averred in the bill go unchallenged and set up some special matter by plea sufficient to defeat the recovery, and in such case, no fact is in issue at the hearing but the matter so specially pleaded. In these suits, those defendants who were not the original wrongdoers had the right to set up any special matter of defense which constituted a defense as to them, and then the inquiry was limited to such matte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-27-1893
Huber v. Nelson Manufacturing Co. - 148 U.S. 270 (1893) U.S. Supreme Court Huber v. Nelson Manufacturing Co., 148 U.S. 270 (1893) Huber v. Nelson Manufacturing Company No. 143 Argued March 16-17, 1893 Decided March 27, 1893 148 U.S. 270 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI Syllabus Letters patent No. 260,232, granted June 27, 1882, to Henry Huber, as assignee of Stewart Peters and William Donald, of Glasgow, Scotland, for an "improvement in water closets," the patent expressing on its face that it was "subject to the limitation prescribed by 4887, Rev.Stat., by reason of English patent dated April 7, 1874, No. 1207," are void because the English patent had expired April 7, 1881. Reissued letters patent No. 10,86, granted to James E. Boyle, April 19, 1887, for an improvement in flushing apparatus for water closets, on the reissue of original patent No. 291,139, granted to Boyle January 1, 1884, the application for the reis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-10-1893
Dalzell v. Dueber Watch Case Mfg. Co. - 149 U.S. 315 (1893) U.S. Supreme Court Dalzell v. Dueber Watch Case Mfg. Co., 149 U.S. 315 (1893) Dalzell v. Dueber Watch Case Manufacturing Company Nos. 213, 214 Argued April 18-19, 1893 Decided May 10, 1893 149 U.S. 315 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus An oral agreement for the sale and assignment of the right to obtain a patent for an invention is not within the statute of frauds, nor within section 4898 of the Revised Statutes, requiring assignments of patents to be in writing, and may be specifically enforced in equity, upon sufficient proof thereof. A manufacturing corporation which has employed a skilled workman for a stated compensation to take charge of its works and to devote his time and services to devising and making improvements in articles there manufactured is not entitled to a conveyance of patents obtained for inventions made by him while so employed, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-09-1893
Noble v. Union River Logging R. Co. - 147 U.S. 165 (1893) U.S. Supreme Court Noble v. Union River Logging R. Co., 147 U.S. 165 (1893) Noble v. Union River Logging Railroad Company No. 1157 Argued December 20, 1892 Decided January 9, 1893 147 U.S. 165 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus A decision of the Secretary of the Interior, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by the Act of March 3, 1875, c. 152, 18 Stat. 482, that a designated railroad company is entitled to a right of way over public laud, cannot be revoked by his successor in office. Whether a railroad company applying for such a grant is a company which the statute authorizes to receive a grant of a right of way is a quasi -judicial question which, when once determined by the Secretary, is finally determined so far as the executive is concerned. This was a bill in equity by the union River Logging Railroad Company to enjoin the Secretary of the Interior and the Commission...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-10-1893
Hill v. United States - 149 U.S. 593 (1893) U.S. Supreme Court Hill v. United States, 149 U.S. 593 (1893) Hill v. United States No. 108 Argued and submitted January 6, 1893 Decided May 10, 1893 149 U.S. 593 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Syllabus A claim by a person asserting title in land under tidewater, for damages for the use and occupation thereof by the United States for the erection and maintenance of a lighthouse, without his consent and without compensation to him, but not showing that the United States have acknowledged any right of property in him as against them, is a case sounding in tort of which the circuit court of the United States has no jurisdiction under the Act of March 3, 1887, c. 359. The case is stated in the opinion. MR. JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court. This was a suit, brought November 1, 1888, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland under the Act of Mar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-15-1893
Carr v. Quigley - 149 U.S. 652 (1893) U.S. Supreme Court Carr v. Quigley, 149 U.S. 652 (1893) Carr v. Quigley Argued April 26-27, 1893 Decided May 15, 1893 149 U.S. 652 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus Lands within the exterior limits of a Mexican grant, sub judice at the date of the definite location of the Central Pacific railroad, were not "reserved" within the meaning of that word as used in section three of the Act of July 1, 1862, 12 Stat. 459, c. 120, but inured to the road as a portion of its land grant and were properly patented to it as such. Newhall v. Sanger, 92 U. S. 761 , explained. United States v. McLaughlin, 127 U. S. 428 , approved. This was an action of ejectment brought by W. B. Carr against John Quigley for the possession of one hundred and sixty acres of land situated in the County of Alameda, State of California. The land is a portion of an unnumbered odd section granted to the Central Pacific Railroad Company of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-03-1893
Monroe Cattle Co. v. Becker - 147 U.S. 47 (1893) U.S. Supreme Court Monroe Cattle Co. v. Becker, 147 U.S. 47 (1893) Monroe Cattle Co. v. Becker No. 87 Submitted December 9, 1892 Decided January 3, 1893 147 U.S. 47 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Syllabus During the ninety days allowed by the statutes of Texas concerning the purchase of school lands to a purchaser to make his first payment, Laws of 1879, special session, p. 23, Laws of 1881, p, 119, it is not competent for the surveyor to permit a person who had filed an application for a designated tract to treat the application as withdrawn and abandoned and to make another application for the same tract in the name of a different person. During that period of ninety days, the land is in the position of reserved lands under railroad grant acts, to which it is well settled that the grant does not attach if the land is in any way segregated from the public lands. The is...
Tag this Judgment!