Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-11-1917
Santa Fe Pacific R. Co. v. Lane - 244 U.S. 492 (1917) U.S. Supreme Court Santa Fe Pacific R. Co. v. Lane, 244 U.S. 492 (1917) Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Company v. Lane No. 170 Argued April 18, 1917 Decided June 11, 1917 244 U.S. 492 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus In view of the power reserved to add to, alter, amend or repeal the act granting land to the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad Company (July 27, 1866, c. 278, 14 Stat. 292), and of the grantee's failure to comply with the conditions as to construction, Congress, without violating any vested right and consistently with the Fifth Amendment, could lay upon the grantee the cost of surveying the lands granted and require payment thereof as a condition to the issuance of patents, as was in fact done, in respect of said company, by the general provision in the Act of July 31, 1876, c. 246, 19 Stat. 121. The construction placed by the Land Department upon the Act of 1876, supra, to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-09-1917
Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Co. - 243 U.S. 502 (1917) U.S. Supreme Court Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Co., 243 U.S. 502 (1917) Motion Picture Patents Company v. Universal Film Manufacturing Company No. 715 Argued January 12, 15, 1917 Decided April 9, 1917 243 U.S. 502 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus Under the patent law, the grant by patent of the exclusive right to use, like the grant of the exclusive right to vend, is limited to the invention described in the claims of the patent, and that law does not empower the patent owner, by notices attached to the things patented, to extend the scope of the patent monopoly by restricting their use to materials necessary for their operation but forming no part of the patented invention, or to send such articles forth into the channels of trade subject to conditions as to use or royalty, to be imposed thereafter, in the vendor's discretion. The Button-Faste...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Nov-05-1917
United States v. Chase - 245 U.S. 89 (1917) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Chase, 245 U.S. 89 (1917) United States v. Chase No. 146 Argued October 2, 1917 Decided November 5, 1917 245 U.S. 89 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The assignment of land provided for by Article IV of the treaty of March 6, 1865, 14 Stat. 667, with the Omaha Indians was merely an apportionment of the tribal right of occupancy to the members of the tribe in severalty, leaving the fee in the United States and Page 245 U. S. 90 leaving the United States and the tribe free to take such measures for the ultimate and permanent disposal of the lands, including the fee, as might become appropriate in view of changing conditions, the welfare of the Indians, and the public interests. The facts that the treaty does not say that the fee shall pass, that it makes no provision for patents, and does not relieve assignees from federal guardianship or subject them t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-21-1917
United States v. Wildcat - 244 U.S. 111 (1917) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Wildcat, 244 U.S. 111 (1917) United States v. Wildcat No. 741 Argued April 11, 12, 13, 1917 Decided May 21, 1917 244 U.S. 111 ON CERTIFICATE FROM AND CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Acting under the enrollment provisions of the Curtis Act of June 28, 1898, and the Creek Agreement of March 1, 1901, the Dawes Commission was a quasi -judicial tribunal, and enrollments made by it and approved by the Secretary of the Interior are presumptively correct, and, unless impeached by very clear evidence of fraud, mistake, or arbitrary action, they are conclusive. Whether or not a person alleged to be a member of the Creek Nation was living on April 1, 1899, is one of the questions going to the right of such person or his heirs to have his name enrolled under 28 of Agreement of March 1, 1901, which the Dawes Commission was competent to decide; it is not a jur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-07-1917
Ewing v. Fowler Car Co. - 244 U.S. 1 (1917) U.S. Supreme Court Ewing v. Fowler Car Co., 244 U.S. 1 (1917) Ewing v. Fowler Car Company No. 721 Argued April 17, 1917 Decided May 7, 1917 244 U.S. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus When an applicant for a patent admits that the invention shown in his application was made at a date subsequent to the date upon which another application for the same invention was filed, and by amendment of his application adopts the prior applicant's claims, he thereby concedes the priority of the other's invention, its utility, and the sufficiency of the claims. In such a case, the Commissioner of Patents cannot be required by mandamus to declare an interference. Under Rev.Stats., 4904, the duty of the Commissioner to declare an interference arises only when, in the exercise of his judgment upon the facts presented, he is of opinion that a senior application will be interfered with by a junior one; the me...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-06-1917
Gannon v. Johnson - 243 U.S. 108 (1917) U.S. Supreme Court Gannon v. Johnson, 243 U.S. 108 (1917) Gannon v. Johnson No. 131 Argued December 2, 1916 Decided March 6, 1917 243 U.S. 108 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Syllabus Under the Choctaw-Chickasaw supplemental agreement of July 1, 1902, 11, 12, 15 and 16, 32 Stat. 641, surplus lands, selected by a member of the Chickasaw Tribe, become alienable only with the expiration of the respective periods after patent fixed in 16; these restrictions accompany the land when it passes to a tribal member by inheritance, and a conveyance by him while the periods are running is void. Mullen v. United States, 224 U. S. 48 , distinguished. The Act of April 26, 1906, 34 Stat. 137, in providing that conveyances of allotments made after selection should not be declared invalid solely because made prior to patent, was not intended to validate deeds made before removal of restrictions on alienation; on the contrary, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-21-1917
Hart Steel Co. v. Railroad Supply Co. - 244 U.S. 294 (1917) U.S. Supreme Court Hart Steel Co. v. Railroad Supply Co., 244 U.S. 294 (1917) Hart Steel Co. v. Railroad Supply Company No. 67 Argued April 17, 18, 1917 Decided May 21, 1917 244 U.S. 294 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus A patent owner sued for infringement in two circuits, the defendants being, in one case, a corporation which manufactured the articles complained of, and, in the other, a second corporation whose shares were owned, and whose conduct was controlled, by the first, and which, with its manager (joined with it as codefendant), was acting as the selling agent of the first corporation under its authority and in its interest. The subject matter and relief prayed were the same in both suits. Held that there was such privity between the defendants that a judgment against the plaintiff rendered by the circuit court of appeals in the suit against the manufacturer was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Dec-10-1917
Duncan Townsite Co. v. Lane - 245 U.S. 308 (1917) U.S. Supreme Court Duncan Townsite Co. v. Lane, 245 U.S. 308 (1917) Duncan Townsite Co. v. Lane No. 51 Argued November 15, 1917 Decided December 10, 1917 245 U.S. 308 ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus An allotment certificate issued under the Choctaw-Chickasaw agreement of July I, 1902, c. 1362, 32 Stat. 641, passes the equitable title only; the legal title remains in the United States until conveyed by patent, duly recorded, as provided by 5 of the Act of April 26, 1906, c. 1876, 34 Stat. 137, and the allotment in the meantime is subject to be set aside, by the Secretary of the Interior, for fraudulent procurement. The doctrine of bona fide purchase will not aid the holder of an equity to overcome the holder of both the legal title and an equity. Mandamus is a discretionary remedy, largely controlled by equitable principles; it will not be granted to promote a wrong -- to direct an act ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-09-1917
United States v. Waller - 243 U.S. 452 (1917) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Waller, 243 U.S. 452 (1917) United States v. Waller No. 697 Argued March 14, 15, 1917 Decided April 9, 1917 243 U.S. 452 CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus By force of the Clapp Amendment of 1906-1907, chaps. 3504, 2285, 34 Stat. 353, 1034, lands in the White Earth Reservation allotted and patented in trust to an adult mixed-blood Indian belong to him with all the rights and incidents of full ownership by persons of full capacity, including the right of alienation, and when he conveys them, the United States cannot maintain for his benefit a suit to annul the deed upon the ground that it was procured by fraud. The case is stated in the opinion. Page 243 U. S. 455 MR. JUSTICE DAY delivered the opinion of the court; This case is here upon a certificate from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, from which it Page 243 U. S. 456 appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-08-1917
Hill v. Reynolds - 242 U.S. 361 (1917) U.S. Supreme Court Hill v. Reynolds, 242 U.S. 361 (1917) Hill v. Reynolds No. 61 Argued November 2, 1916 Decided January 8, 1917 242 U.S. 361 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Syllabus A decision of the Secretary of the Interior adjudicating a contest over certain Choctaw and Chickasaw lands, and awarding a patent, under the agreement in the Act of June 28, 1898, c. 517, 30 Stat. 505, and the supplemental agreement in the Act of July 1, 1902, c. 1362, 32 Stat. 641, held free from misconstruction or misapplication of law. The provisions of 17 and 18 of the Act of June 28, 1898, supra, inhibiting enclosures and holdings of lands in excess of allottable quantities, were left in force as to the Choctaws and Chickasaws by the agreement in the 29th section which became effective through tribal ratification on August 24, 1898. Choctaw and Chickasaw lands held by a widow and her minor children in excess of allottable q...
Tag this Judgment!