Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-19-1906
United States v. Detroit Lumber Co. - 200 U.S. 321 (1906) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321 (1906) United States v. Detroit Timber and Lumber Company Nos. 106, 165 Argued December 7, 1905 Decided February 19, 1906 200 U.S. 321 APPEAL AND CROSS-APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The rule of law concerning good faith is the same in respect to purchases of land and timber as that which obtains in other commercial transactions, and no one is bound to assume that the party with whom he deals is a wrongdoer; but, on paying full value for the property presented, the title to which is apparently valid and in regard to which there are no suspicious circumstances, he will acquire the rights of a bona fide purchaser. Equity looks at the substance, and not at the mere form in which a transaction takes place, and constructive fraud in the entries of land purchased Page 200 U. S. 322 by one company from another...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-19-1906
A. Leschen & Sons Rope Co. v. Broderick & Bascom Co. - 201 U.S. 166 (1906) U.S. Supreme Court A. Leschen & Sons Rope Co. v. Broderick & Bascom Co., 201 U.S. 166 (1906) A. Leschen & Sons Rope Company v. Broderick & Bascom Rope Company No. 187 Argued March 1, 1906 Decided March 19, 1906 201 U.S. 166 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus A trademark for wire rope of a red or other distinctively colored streak applied to or woven in the rope is too wide and too indefinite. Where color is made the essential feature of a trademark, it must be so Page 201 U. S. 167 defined or connected with some symbol or design that other manufacturers may know what they can safely do. A trademark not limited to a particular color must stand or fall in its entirety, and if the description is too broad, it cannot be sustained by proof that only a particular color is used. Quaere whether mere color not impressed in a particular design can constitute a valid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Dec-03-1906
Allen v. Riley - 203 U.S. 347 (1906) U.S. Supreme Court Allen v. Riley, 203 U.S. 347 (1906) Allen v. Riley No. 99 Submitted November 6, 1906 Decided December 3, 1906 203 U.S. 347 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS Syllabus While a state may not pass any law prohibiting the sale of patents for inventions or nullifying the laws of Congress regulating their transfer, it has the power, until Congress legislates on the subject, to make such reasonable regulations in regard to the transfer of patent rights as will protect its citizens from fraud, and a requirement in the laws of Kansas that, before sale or barter of patent rights, an authenticated copy of the letters patent and the authority of the vendor to sell the right patented hall be filed in the office of the clerk of the county within which the rights are sold is not an unreasonable regulation. 71 Kan. 378 affirmed. Frances J. Riley, the defendant in error, who was plaintiff below, recovered a judgment ag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Dec-10-1906
Lowry v. Allen - 203 U.S. 476 (1906) U.S. Supreme Court Lowry v. Allen, 203 U.S. 476 (1906) Lowry v. Allen No. 56 Argued October 24, 25, 1906 Decided December 10, 1906 203 U.S. 476 ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus Rule 124 of the Patent Office which provide that no appeal can be taken from a decision of a primary examiner affirming the patentability of the claim or the applicant's right to make the same, is not void as contrary to the provisions of 482, 483, 4904, 4910, 4911, Rev.Stats., or 9 of the Act of February 9, 1893, 27 Stat. 436. Those statutes provide only for appeals upon the question of priority of invention, and appeals on other questions are left under the power given by 483, Rev.Stat., to the regulation of the Patent Office. 26 App.D.C. 8 affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion. Page 203 U. S. 478 MR. JUSTICE McKENNA delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a petition for mandamus, filed in the Supreme Court o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-19-1906
Southern Pacific R. Co. v. United States - 200 U.S. 341 (1906) U.S. Supreme Court Southern Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 200 U.S. 341 (1906) Southern Pacific Railroad Company v. United States No. 141 Argued January 24, 1906 Decided February 19, 1906 200 U.S. 341 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Although a suit in equity cannot be maintained where there is an adequate remedy at law, and this objection may be taken for the first time in the appellate court, still, if not raised until then, the court need not, if the subject matter of the suit is of a class over which it has jurisdiction, dismiss the bill, and so held in regard to a suit brought by the government, under an act of Congress, to recover from a railroad company the value of lands erroneously patented to and sold by it to numerous persons, some of whom were made defendants as representatives of the class, the bill also praying for cancellation of patents, quieting of titles...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-02-1906
Wisconsin v. Hitchcock - 201 U.S. 202 (1906) U.S. Supreme Court Wisconsin v. Hitchcock, 201 U.S. 202 (1906) Wisconsin v. Hitchcock No. 12, Original Argued February 21, 1906 Decided April 2, 1906 201 U.S. 202 I N EQUITY Syllabus The provisions in the Enabling Act of August 6, 1846, authorizing the people of the then Territory of Wisconsin to form a state government, and by which section 16 in every township of the public lands in that territory not sold or otherwise disposed of was granted to the state for the use of schools, did not operate to vest in the state section 16 of townships within the La Pointe or Bad River and the Flambeau Indian Reservations from which the Indians have never been required to remove, and this notwithstanding, by the provisions in treaties executed prior to 1846, the Indians occupying them ceded those lands to the United States, only retaining the privileges of occupancy thereof until required to remove therefrom by the President of the United St...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-23-1906
Oregon v. Hitchcock - 202 U.S. 60 (1906) U.S. Supreme Court Oregon v. Hitchcock, 202 U.S. 60 (1906) Oregon v. Hitchcock No. 16, Original Argued April 5, 6, 1906 Decided April 23, 1906 202 U.S. 60 I N EQUITY Syllabus In the absence of any act of Congress waiving immunity of the United States or consenting that it be sued in respect to swamp lands, either within or without an Indian reservation, or of any act of Congress assuming full responsibility in behalf of its wards, the Indians, affecting their rights to such lands, this Court has no jurisdiction of an action brought by a state against the Secretary of the Interior and Commissioner of the General Land Office to enjoin them from patenting to Indians lands within that state, claimed by the state under the swamp land acts. Page 202 U. S. 61 The fact that the action is brought by a state against the Secretary of the Interior, who is a citizen of a different state, does not give this Court jurisdiction as the real party i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-19-1906
Southern Pacific R. Co. v. United States - 200 U.S. 354 (1906) U.S. Supreme Court Southern Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 200 U.S. 354 (1906) Southern Pacific Railroad Company v. United States No. 142 Argued January 24, 25, 1906 Decided February 19, 1906 200 U.S. 354 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Southern Pacific Railroad v. United States, No. 1, ante, p. 200 U. S. 341 , followed as to the power of the court to maintain this suit in equity and as to the validity of the acts of Congress of 1887 and 1896 for the adjustment of railroad land grants. Held also that: Lands which at the time a railroad grant attached by the filing and approval of the map of definite location were within the claimed but undetermined limits of a Mexican grant did not pass to the railroad company although within the place limits of its grant, and this notwithstanding the fact that, by the final survey and patent they were excluded from the Mexican g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-12-1906
Nelson v. United States - 201 U.S. 92 (1906) U.S. Supreme Court Nelson v. United States, 201 U.S. 92 (1906) Nelson v. United States Nos. 490-492 Argued January 5, 8, 1906 Decided March 12, 1906 201 U.S. 92 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Syllabus In a suit in the circuit court of the United States brought by the United States against corporations for violations of the Anti-Trust Law of July 2, 1890, a witness refused to answer questions or submit book to inspection before an examiner appointed by the court on the ground of immateriality, also pleading the Fifth Amendment; after the court had overruled the objections and directed him to answer he again refused, and judgment in contempt was entered against him. On appeal to this Court, held that: Questions under the Constitution of the United States were involved, and this Court has jurisdiction of an appeal direct from the circuit court. In such an action, the books of the va...
Tag this Judgment!