Court : US Supreme Court
Gilmer v. Poindexter - 51 U.S. 257 (1850) U.S. Supreme Court Gilmer v. Poindexter, 51 U.S. 10 How. 257 257 (1850) Gilmer v. Poindexter 51 U.S. (10 How.) 257 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Syllabus On 30 January, 1835, Poindexter purchased from Thomas a right of entry in certain lands in Louisiana, with authority to locate the lands in the name of Thomas, and they were so located. Subsequently to such location, viz., on the right which Thomas then had, or thereafter might have, to the land so located, and authorized Poindexter to obtain a patent in his own name. The patent, however, was issued to Thomas, and not to Poindexter. This did not vest in Poindexter a legal title, which would enable him to recover in a petitory action, which corresponds with an action of ejectment. Poindexter did not take a legal title, either by direct conveyance or by estoppel. On 20 November, 1835, Poindexter, by a conveyance of record, conveyed hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Stimpson v. Baltimore & Susquehanna R. Co. - 51 U.S. 329 (1850) U.S. Supreme Court Stimpson v. Baltimore & Susquehanna R. Co., 51 U.S. 10 How. 329 329 (1850) Stimpson v. Baltimore & Susquehanna Railroad Company 51 U.S. (10 How.) 329 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Syllabus Stimpson's patent "for an improvement for the purpose of carrying railroads through the streets of towns or in other situations where it may be desirable that the wheels of ordinary carriages should not be subjected to injury or obstruction" decided to be a combination or application of means already known and in use, and not to be original as to the invention or discovery of those means. That the mode given by him for the application of those means and the objects proposed thereby differ materially from the apparatus used by the Baltimore & Susquehanna Railroad Company for turning the corners of streets. The latter therefore is no infringement of Stimpson's pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
League v. De Young - 52 U.S. 185 (1850) U.S. Supreme Court League v. De Young, 52 U.S. 11 How. 185 185 (1850) League v. De Young 52 U.S. (11 How.) 185 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS Syllabus Before the admission of Texas into the Union, that state passed many laws upon the subject of head rights to land, the general object of which was to ascertain and secure valid titles and prevent frauds by acts of limitation and by the establishment of boards of commissioners to separate the bad from the good titles. In the constitution adopted just before her admission into the Union, there was an article annulling fraudulent certificates, and opening the courts up to a certain day to suitors for the investigation of their claims. It was perfectly competent for the people of Texas to pass these laws and adopt this constitution. Moreover, they were all passed before the Constitution of the United States had any operation over Texas, and cannot therefore be in conflict with any of i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Hotchkiss v. Greenwood - 52 U.S. 248 (1850) U.S. Supreme Court Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 52 U.S. 11 How. 248 248 (1850) Hotchkiss v. Greenwood 52 U.S. (11 How.) 248 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF OHIO Syllabus A patent granted for a "new and useful improvement in making door and other knobs of all kinds of clay used in pottery, and of porcelain" by having the "cavity in which the screw or shank is inserted by which they are fastened largest at the bottom of its depth, in form of a dovetail, and a screw formed therein by pouring in metal in a fused state" was invalid. The invention claimed in the schedule was manufacturing knobs as above described, of potter's clay, or any kind of clay used in pottery, and shaped and finished by moulding, turning, burning, and glazing, and also of porcelain. The knob was not new, nor the metallic shank and spindle, nor the dovetail form of the cavity in the knob, nor the means by which the metallic shank w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Thredgill v. Pintard - 53 U.S. 24 (1851) U.S. Supreme Court Thredgill v. Pintard, 53 U.S. 12 How. 24 24 (1851) Thredgill v. Pintard 53 U.S. (12 How.) 24 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Syllabus Where a settler upon the public lands had a preemption right to them and sold them to a person who again sold them to a third party, the original vendor has a lien upon the land for the balance of the purchase money still due, and can enforce it by a bill in chancery notwithstanding the vendee has taken out a patent in his own name under a subsequent preemption law. On 12 April, 1814, Congress passed an Act, 3 Stat. 122, § 5, giving a right of preemption to settlers upon certain portions of the public lands, under certain conditions, one of which was that the Indian title should have been extinguished. A person by the name of Jane Matthers, claimed a right of preemption, under this act, to the southeast quarter of section one, towns...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Ballance v. Forsyth - 54 U.S. 18 (1851) U.S. Supreme Court Ballance v. Forsyth, 54 U.S. 13 How. 18 18 (1851) Ballance v. Forsyth 54 U.S. (13 How.) 18 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Syllabus On 15 May, 1820, Congress passed an Act, 3 Stat. 605, for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Village of Peoria by which every person claiming a lot in the village was to give notice to the register of the land office, whose report was to be laid before Congress. On 3 March, 1823, Congress passed another Act, 3 Stat. 786, granting to each of the French and Canadian inhabitants, and other settlers according to the report, the lot upon which they had settled, and directed the surveyor of the public lands to make a plat of the lots, for which patents were to be issued to the claimants. This survey and plat were not made until April and May, 1837. In November, 1837, a person who was not a settler purchased at the land office at private entry th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
McCormick v. Gray - 54 U.S. 26 (1851) U.S. Supreme Court McCormick v. Gray, 54 U.S. 13 How. 26 26 (1851) McCormick v. Gray 54 U.S. (13 How.) 26 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Syllabus Where two partners assigned all their partnership property to a trustee with certain instructions how to dispose of it, and afterwards agreed between themselves to Page 54 U. S. 27 appoint an arbitrator, recognizing in their bonds the directions given to the trustee, the arbitrator had no right to deviate from these directions and make other disposition of the property. The reason given by the arbitrator, that he preferred creditors before awarding a certain sum to one of the partners, is insufficient. Nor had the arbitrator a right to depart in any particular from the arrangement of the property which the partners had designated in their deed to the trustee. McCormick was the inventor of "McCormick's patent Virginia Reaper," and being desirou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Howard v. Ingersoll - 54 U.S. 381 (1851) U.S. Supreme Court Howard v. Ingersoll, 54 U.S. 13 How. 381 381 (1851) Howard v. Ingersoll 54 U.S. (13 How.) 381 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA AND ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA Syllabus In 1802, when Georgia ceded her back lands to the United States, she had jurisdiction over the whole of the Chattahoochee River, from its source to the thirty-first degree of north latitude. The rule is that where a power possesses a river and cedes the territory on the other side of it, making the river the boundary, that power retains the river unless there is an express stipulation for the relinquishment of the rights of soil and jurisdiction over the bed of such river. When Georgia ceded to the United States all the land situated on the west of a line running along the western bank of the Chattahoochee River, she retained the bed of the river and all the land to the east of the line above men...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Le Roy v. Tatham - 55 U.S. 156 (1852) U.S. Supreme Court Le Roy v. Tatham, 55 U.S. 14 How. 156 156 (1852) Le Roy v. Tatham 55 U.S. (14 How.) 156 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus In a patent for improvements upon the machinery used for making pipes and tubes from lead or tin when in a set or solid state by forcing it under great pressure from out of a receiver through apertures, dies, and cores, the claim of the patentees was thus stated: "What we claim as our invention and desire to secure by letters patent is the combination of the following parts, above described, to-wit, the core and bridge, or guide piece, the chamber, and the die, when used to form pipes of metal under heat and pressure in the manner set forth or in any other manner substantially the same." The circuit court charged the jury "That the originality did not consist in the novelty of the machinery, but in bringing a newly discovered principle in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Cunningham v. Ashley - 55 U.S. 377 (1852) U.S. Supreme Court Cunningham v. Ashley, 55 U.S. 14 How. 377 377 (1852) Cunningham v. Ashley 55 U.S. (14 How.) 377 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS Syllabus On the 25th of December, 1824, Cunningham applied to the land office at Batesville, in Arkansas, to become the purchaser of a quarter section of land under a Cherokee certificate which had become vested in him. This application was refused upon the ground that two New Madrid certificates had been laid upon the land in 1820. The right under these certificates was claimed by Ashley. In 1830, Cunningham said that Brumbach had an improvement on the same quarter section, which Brumbach assigned to Ashley. The law sanctioned the division of a quarter section under such circumstances. In 1831, Cunningham claimed a preemption right under the Act of 29 May, 1830. The claims under this act and under the Cherokee float were not inconsistent with each other. In 1838, two...
Tag this Judgment!