Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1895
Richards v. Chase Elevator - 159 U.S. 477 (1895) U.S. Supreme Court Richards v. Chase Elevator, 159 U.S. 477 (1895) Richards v. Chase Elevator No. 319 of October term, 1894 Received June 3, 1895 Denied November 11, 1895 159 U.S. 477 PETITION FOR A REHEARING Syllabus The Court, on application to file a petition for rehearing, adheres to its opinion, reported in 158 U. S. 299 , that letters patent No. 308,095, issued November 18, 1881, to Edward S. Richards for a grain transferring apparatus, Page 159 U. S. 478 are wholly void upon their face for want of patentable novelty and invention. While the omission of an element in a combination may constitute invention if the result of the new combination be the same as before, yet if the omission of an element is attended by a corresponding omission of the function performed by that element, there is no invention if the elements retained perform the same function as before. When the result of a combination of old elements is a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-07-1895
Campbell v. Haverhill - 155 U.S. 610 (1895) U.S. Supreme Court Campbell v. Haverhill, 155 U.S. 610 (1895) Campbell v. Haverhill No. 87 Argued November 21-22, 1894 Decided January 7, 1895 155 U.S. 610 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Syllabus Where a party excepts to a ruling of the court, but, not standing upon his exception, elects to proceed with the trial, he thereby waives it. The statutes of limitation of the several states apply to actions at law for the infringement of letters patent. This was an action at law for the infringement of letters patent No. 42,920, issued May 24, 1864, to James Knibbs for an improvement in fire engine pumps, of which patent plaintiffs were the assignees. The patent expired May 24, 1881. The action was begun May 20, 1887, in the name of Ruel Philbrook and several others, among whom was Christopher Page 155 U. S. 611 C. Campbell, the plaintiff in error, claiming to be at different times a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-04-1895
Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Sulzberger - 157 U.S. 1 (1895) U.S. Supreme Court Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Sulzberger, 157 U.S. 1 (1895) Bate Refrigerating Company v. Sulzberger No. 687 Argued November 15-16, 19, 1894 Decided March 4, 1895 157 U.S. 1 CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus The provision in Rev.Stat. 4887 respecting a "patent granted for an invention which has been previously patented in a foreign country" refers to foreign patents granted previously to the issue of letters patent for the same invention by the United States, and not to foreign patents granted previously to the application for the American letters. When such foreign letters issue before the United States letters issue, the American patent is so limited as to expire at the same time with the foreign patent having the shortest term, but in no case is it to be in force more than seventeen years. When the language used in a statute is plain and unambiguous, a r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-01-1895
Orchard v. Alexander - 157 U.S. 372 (1895) U.S. Supreme Court Orchard v. Alexander, 157 U.S. 372 (1895) Orchard v. Alexander Nos. 192-193 Argued and submitted March 13, 1895 Decided April 1, 1895 157 U.S. 372 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON Syllabus The Commissioner of the General Land Office may direct the proper local land officer to hear and pass upon charges of fraud in the final proof of a preemption claim upon which the requisite cash entry has been paid, and has jurisdiction to review the judgment of the local land officer in respect thereof, and the Secretary of the Interior has jurisdiction to review such judgment of the Commissioner, and to order such an entry, shown to be fraudulent, to be cancelled. While these two cases differ in their particular facts, they agree in the questions involved, and for convenience may be considered together. As the opinion of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington was filed in the second case, the speci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-06-1895
Catholic Bishop of Nesqually v. Gibbon - 158 U.S. 155 (1895) U.S. Supreme Court Catholic Bishop of Nesqually v. Gibbon, 158 U.S. 155 (1895) Catholic Bishop of Nesqually v. Gibbon No 277 Argued April 9-10, 1895 Decided May 6, 1895 158 U.S. 155 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Syllabus No question as to jurisdiction in this case having been taken in the court below or here, this court waives the inquiry whether an objection to the jurisdiction might not, if seasonably taken, have compelled a dismissal. In the administration of the public lands, the decisions of the land department upon questions of fact are conclusive, and only questions of law can be reviewed in the courts. In the absence of some specific provision to the contrary in respect of any particular grant of public land, its administration falls wholly and absolutely within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, under the supervision' and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-20-1895
Stoneroad v. Stoneroad - 158 U.S. 240 (1895) U.S. Supreme Court Stoneroad v. Stoneroad, 158 U.S. 240 (1895) Stoneroad v. Stoneroad No. 11 Submitted November 9, 1893 Decided May 20, 1895 158 U.S. 240 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF NEW MEXICO Syllabus The Act of Congress of June 21, 1860, c. 167, confirming the claim,of Preston Beck, Jr., to a grant of land from Mexico made before the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, by necessary implication contemplated that the grant should be thereafter surveyed, and that such survey was essential for the purpose of definitely segregating the land confirmed from the public domain. Such survey could only be made by the proper officer of the political department of the government, but notice thereof was not necessary. Such survey having been made by such officer, and on the trial of this case evidence having been introduced tending to show that land of the defendant in controversy lay outside of the lines of that survey, but wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-20-1895
Eby v. King - 158 U.S. 366 (1895) U.S. Supreme Court Eby v. King, 158 U.S. 366 (1895) Eby v. King No. 336 Argued May 1-2, 1895 Decided May 20, 1895 158 U.S. 366 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Syllabus Reissued letters patents No. 7851, granted August 21, 1877, to Henry H. Eby for an improvement in cob-carriers for cornshellers are void as being for a different invention from that described and claimed in the original letters, specification, and claim. It is doubtful whether the Commissioner of Patents has jurisdiction to consider and act upon an application for a surrender of letters patent and reissue when there is only the bare statement that the patentee wishes to surrender his patent and obtain a reissue. Whether, when a patent has been surrendered and reissued, and such reissue is held to be void, the patentee may proceed upon his original patent is considered and discussed, but is not decided. This was a bil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-27-1895
Clark v. Reeder - 158 U.S. 505 (1895) U.S. Supreme Court Clark v. Reeder, 158 U.S. 505 (1895) Clark v. Reeder No. 262 Argued April 22-23, 1895 Decided May 27, 1895 158 U.S. 505 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA Syllabus C. contracted in writing in 1884 with R. to purchase from him about 50,000 acres of land in West Virginia, which had been originally granted by the Commonwealth of Virginia to D. in 1796, and which R. had acquired in 1870 from persons who had purchased it at a sale for nonpayment of taxes, made in 1857, after the death of D. The contract was by the acre, at so much per acre. The title was to be examined by a lawyer of West Virginia, the attorney of C., and upon his certifying it to be good, the first payments were to be made. The total number of acres within the defined limits were agreed to by both parties, but a farther survey was to be made at the expense of C. in order to ascertain what tracts and how ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-03-1895
Wisconsin Central R. Co. v. Forsythe - 159 U.S. 46 (1895) U.S. Supreme Court Wisconsin Central R. Co. v. Forsythe, 159 U.S. 46 (1895) Wisconsin Central Railroad Company v. Forsythe No. 238 Argued March 28-29, 1895 Decided June 3, 1895 159 U.S. 46 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN Syllabus The land in controversy in this case is within the place limits of the road of the plaintiff in error, and was subject to the full control of Congress at the time of the grant made by section 3 of the Act of May 5, 1854, c. 80, 13, Stat. 66, and it passed by operation of that grant notwithstanding the fact that it was withdrawn by the Land Department in 1856 and 1859 in order to satisfy the grant made by the Act of June 3, 1856, c. 43, 11 Stat. 20. Every act of Congress making a grant of public land is to be treated both Page 159 U. S. 47 as a law and a grant, and the intent of Congress, when ascertained, is to control in the interpret...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Oct-21-1895
McCormick v. Hayes - 159 U.S. 332 (1895) U.S. Supreme Court McCormick v. Hayes, 159 U.S. 332 (1895) McCormick v. Hayes No. 37 Argued March 27-28, 1895 Decided October 21, 1895 159 U.S. 332 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IOWA Syllabus In an action in which the plaintiff claims title under the Act of September 28, 1850, c. 84, 9 Stat. 519, granting to the several states the swamp and overflowed lands in each unfit for cultivation, and the defendant claims title under the Act of May 15, 1856, c. 28, 11 Stat. 9, making a grant of lands to the State of Iowa to aid in the construction of railroads, parol evidence is inadmissible to show, in opposition to the concurrent action of federal and state officers having authority in the premises, that the lands its controversy were, in fact at the date of the act of 1850, swamp and overflowed ground. This writ of error brings up a judgment of the Supreme Court of Iowa, which affirmed a judgment of the District Court of Linn ...
Tag this Judgment!