Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-26-1924
Swendig v. Washington Water Power Co. - 265 U.S. 322 (1924) U.S. Supreme Court Swendig v. Washington Water Power Co., 265 U.S. 322 (1924) Swendig v. Washington Water Power Company No. 142 Argued February 21, 1924 Decided May 26, 1924 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. The Act of March 3, 1901, providing for granting rights of way for telephone lines, does not apply to wires strung on the poles of an electric power line and used only in connection with its operation and maintenance. P. 265 U. S. 327 . 2. The Act of February 15, 1901, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, under general regulations to be fixed by him, to permit the use of rights of way through the public lands, reservations, and certain parks, for electric power lines, etc., and declares that such Page 265 U. S. 323 permission may be revoked by the Secretary who gave it or his successor, in his discretion, and shall not be held to confer any right, or easement, o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-07-1924
Ide v. United States - 263 U.S. 497 (1924) U.S. Supreme Court Ide v. United States, 263 U.S. 497 (1924) Ide v. United States No. 37 Argued April 18, 1923 Decided January 7, 1924 263 U.S. 497 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. The Act of August 30, 1890, c. 837, 26 Stat. 391, in providing that, in all patents issued under the public land laws for lands west of the 100th meridian, there should be expressly reserved rights of way "for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States," is to be construed, in the light of the circumstances that prompted it, as including canals and ditches constructed after issuance of patent as well as those constructed before. P. 263 U. S. 501 . 2. Under a statute of Wyoming (Laws 1905, c. 85) granting rights of way over all lands of the state for ditches "constructed by or under the authority of the United States" and providing that reservations thereof shall be inserted in all sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-26-1924
United States ex Rel. Baldwin Co. v. Robertson - 265 U.S. 168 (1924) U.S. Supreme Court United States ex Rel. Baldwin Co. v. Robertson, 265 U.S. 168 (1924) United States ex Rel. Baldwin Co. v. Robertson No. 251 Argued April 29, 1924 Decided May 26, 1924 265 U.S. 168 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus 1. A decree of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia directing dismissal of a bill for want of jurisdiction upon a construction of the Trade Mark Act is renewable here by appeal under Jud.Code 250. P. 265 U. S. 176 . 2. Under 9 of the Trade Mark Act, the registrant of a trademark who successfully resisted an application to cancel before the Commissioner but was defeated on his opponent's appeal to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, may maintain a bill under Rev.Stats. 4915, to enjoin the Commissioner from cancelling the registration. American Steel Foundries v. Robertson, 262 U. S. 209 . P. 265 U. S. 177 . ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-07-1924
McMillan Contracting Co. v. Abernathy - 263 U.S. 438 (1924) U.S. Supreme Court McMillan Contracting Co. v. Abernathy, 263 U.S. 438 (1924) McMillan Contracting Company v. Abernathy Nos. 167 and 168 Motions to dismiss and to remand submitted October 8, 1923 Decided January 7, 1924 263 U.S. 438 APPEALS FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI, TRANSFERRED FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. A case in which the jurisdiction of the district court was invoked by the plaintiff upon the sole ground of a constitutional question is appealable to this Court exclusively (Jud.Code, 238), and the presence of other questions that are not federal questions adequate in themselves to support the original jurisdiction can afford no ground for appeal to the circuit court of appeals. P. 263 U. S. 440 . 2. Where a final decree of the district court which is reviewable only by direct appeal to this Court has been erron...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-07-1924
Webster Elec. Co. v. Splitdorf Elec. Co. - 264 U.S. 463 (1924) U.S. Supreme Court Webster Elec. Co. v. Splitdorf Elec. Co., 264 U.S. 463 (1924) Webster Elecctric Company v. Splitdorf Electric Company No. 93 Argued March 6, 7, 1924 Decided April 7, 1924 264 U.S. 463 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. Upon a review by certiorari, the Court is not called upon to consider questions not raised by the petition for the writ. P. 264 U. S. 464 . 2. Clams 7 and 8 of Patent No. 1,280, 105, issued to Kane, September 24, 1918, for a rigid unitary and integral support for mounting parts of an electrical ignition device, held void because of laches in presenting them to the Patent Office. P. 465. 3. The rule that a reissue patent expanding the patentee's original claims will be invalidated by a delay of two years in applying for it unless special circumstance be proven justifying a longer delay is applicable also to patents issued on divis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Dec-08-1924
Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co. v. Formica Ins. Co. - 266 U.S. 342 (1924) U.S. Supreme Court Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co. v. Formica Ins. Co., 266 U.S. 342 (1924) Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Company v. Formica Insulating Company No. 102 Argued October 22, 23, 1924. Decided December 8, 1924 266 U.S. 342 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. An assignment of a patent, or of the invention upon which a patent is subsequently granted to the assignee, though not required to be under seal, works an estoppel as by deed, preventing the assignor from denying the novelty and utility of the patented invention when sued by the assignee for infringement. P. 266 U. S. 348 . 2. This estoppel, however, distinct from any that might arise in pais from special representation, while it estops the assignor from denying the validity of the claims, does not prevent him from narrowing or qualifying their construction by showing the state of the ...
Tag this Judgment!