Case law

Harris v. Berry

11 F. Cas. 615 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Oct 18, 1847

In Brown v. … In Brown v. Osgood [ 25 Me. 505 ], July, 1846, the plaintiff had taken and filed a deposition and the witness was cross-examined by the plaintiff.

Chandler v. Ladd

5 F. Cas. 452 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Mar 15, 1857

Justice Nelson in the case of Many v. … In the familiar case of Reed v.

Johnson v. Glover

2 D.C. 678 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · May 15, 1826

Raym. 208; Seymore v. Green *680 well, Carth. 283; Harris v. Woolford, 6 T. R. 617; Doe v. Dolman, 7 T. R. 618; Belloes v. Hanford, 1 Rolle Rep. 104; Cook v. Bathurst, 2 Shower, 235; Low v. … Beart, Barnes, 210; 1 Tidd, 165; Hardisty v. Barny, 2 Salk. 598; Atwood v. Burr, 7 Mod. 5; Brown v. Babington, 2 Ld. Raym. 883; Mellon v. Walker, 2 Wms. Saund. 1; Blayer v.

United States ex rel. Castro v. Hendricks

26 F. Cas. 262 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Jun 10, 1858

The petitioner states in his petition that he claimed title to a part of a tract of land granted by the government of Mexico to one Antonio Buelna; that to confirm his title he filed his claim before a board of land commissioners … This office looks to the reorganization act of July 4, l836 [ 5 Stat. 107 ], for its authority of ‘supervision and control’ (see case of Bernard v. Ashley, 18 How. [59 U. S.] 45, and Bell v. Hearon, 19 How. [60 U.

Hall v. Corporation of Washington

11 F. Cas. 278 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Mar 15, 1836

The same point was decided in Hill v. Wells, 6 Pick. 108 . The only ease cited to the contrary was that of the Mayor, &c. of Jonesborough v. … But it was said, and not contradicted, that the justice who tried the cause, was a member of the board of aldermen.

United States v. Gardiner

25 F. Cas. 1245 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · May 18, 1853

.; that the defendant had a claim before the board, and that it could not have been withdrawn without the authority of the board, and that this paper was unquestionably before the board. … Then he testified that the rules shown him were those of the board. Dr.

Bank of Washington v. Walker

2 F. Cas. 750 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Dec 21, 1841

The supreme court laid down this rule of law in [Walker v. Bank of Washington,] 3 How. [44 U. … See I Walker v. Bank of "Washington,] 3 How. [44 U. S.] 62.

Ex parte Dyson

8 F. Cas. 215 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Sep 21, 1860

For this principle of law I refer to the case of Mason v. Fearson, 9 How. [50 U. S.] 249. … I refer to the cases of Baltin v. Taggert, 17 How. [58 U. S.] 83, and Allen v. Blunt [Case No. 216], as throwing light on this question.

Edmondson v. Barrell

8 F. Cas. 322 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Apr 15, 1821

Hole v. Finch, 2 Wils. 394, 395; 1 Saund. 317, note 3; Ford v. Burnham, Barnes, Notes Cas. 340; Spalding v. Mure, 6 Term R. 363; Watson v. Shaw, 2 Term R. 654; Oakley v. Giles, 3 East, 167; Clarke v. … Bl. 947; Whelpdale’s Case, 5 Coke, 119; Stead v. Moon, Cro. Jac. 152. See, also, Shirreff v. Wilks, .1 East, 48; Nowlan v. Geddes, Id. 634; Tom v. Goodrich, 2 Johns. 220 ; Brown v. Belches, 1 Wash. [Va.] 9; Shields v.

United States v. Vanzandt

28 F. Cas. 365 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Oct 15, 1822

Nisbet v. Smith. 2 Brown, Ch. 579; Rees v. Berrington, 2 Ves. Jr. 540; and in Law v. … People v. Jansen, 7 Johns. 332 . Mr. Swann, contra. The act of 1816, was only directory to the executive officers. It left a discretion with the president.

Nicholls v. Hodge's

18 F. Cas. 180 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Jun 1, 1825

Beatty v. State of Maryland, 7 Cranch, 281 . But upon further consideration I am inclined to think that my first impression was wrong. … Nicholls, with whom the executor boarded, also testified that he seemed to have a great deal of trouble in the settlement of the business.

Ex parte Selden

21 F. Cas. 1026 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Apr 3, 1861

The original act is the act of 1836 (chapter 357, § 7), which allows the inventor an appeal to a board of examiners: “Provided, however, that before a board shall be instituted, in any such case, the appellant shall pay to … It is a case decided by Judge Sprague. — Many v. Sizer [Case No. 9,056].

Ex parte Smith

22 F. Cas. 370 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Dec 21, 1860

I refer to Prouty v. Draper, 16 Pet. [41 U. S.] 336; Godon & Burke’s Law of Patents and Copyrights, 63; Many v. Sizer [Case No. 9,056], — referred to in Commissioner Holt’s decision in Phelan’s Case; Curt. … In the case of Ryan v.

Williams v. Wells

29 F. Cas. 1417 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Dec 3, 1842

See Bettison v. Bromley, 12 East, 250; Phipps v. Pitcher, 6 Taunt. 220; Lowe v. Jolliffe, 1 W. Black. 365. Lord Chief-Justice Mansfield: “In a modern case of Holt v. … See Hawley v. Brown, 1 Root, 494 . The statute of 25 Geo.

Union Bank of Georgetown v. Smith

24 F. Cas. 566 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Aug 2, 1830

In Potter v. … In Harvey v.

Spear v. Newell

22 F. Cas. 904 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Jul 1, 1859

Bin. 193; [James v. Browne] 1 Dali. [1 U. S.] 339; Gow. S3; 2 Chip. 95 .- 91; Co. Eitt. 172a: [Ozeas v. Johnson] 4 Dali. [4 U. S.] 435; 6 Vt. 27 . … Brev. 118, F; Burdet v. Thrule, 2 Lev. 126: Herne, Pl. 11, 13; 1 Mod. Ent. 48. 49; 1 Lil. Abr. 20, 22: Vin. Abr. “Account,” W & K; Com. Dig. "Accompt,” A, 4, and E, 2; James v. Browne. 1 Dall. [1 U. S.] 339; Jordan v.

In re Smith

22 F. Cas. 395 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · May 15, 1853

As the boards or sides of the book are of sufficient size to cover ordinary letters when unfolded, th-. latter, when filed, are protected from inj vy, and can be conveniently referred to as the pages of a book. … One only will I refer to, to be found in Park v.

Chapman v. Fenwick

5 F. Cas. 477 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Mar 15, 1834

In the case of Trott v. … And in Burnley v.

Johnston v. Clarke

30 F. Cas. 1090 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Apr 6, 1857

As to fines, penalties and forfeitures, the following cases are to the point: Skinner v. Dayton, 2 Johns. Ch. 535 ; Livingston v. Tompkins, 4 Johns. Ch. 431 ; 2 Story, Eq. Jur. §§ 1313-1316; Hill v. … Barclay, 16 Ves. 403, 405, and 18 Ves. 58; Sparks v. Liverpool Water Works, 13 Ves. 428; Tayloe v. Sandiford, 7 Wheat. [20 U. S.] 13; Reynolds v. Pitts, 19 Ves. 140.

Ex parte Tillman

23 F. Cas. 1269 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Mar 15, 1860

So in the decision of Davoll v. … Brown [Case No. 3,602], by Judge Wood-bury, as stated by Curtis (section 387): “If this statement or description of the invention is clear and explicit, then the language in which he has made his claim, which is generally