CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY
US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for www.chanrobles.com


POPE MFG. CO. V. GORMULLY , 144 U. S. 254 (1892)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 144 U. S. 254 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Pope Mfg. Co. v. Gormully , 144 U.S. 254 (1892)

Pope Manufacturing Company v. Gormully (No. 4)

No. 208

Argued March 10-11, 1892

Decided April 4, 1892

144 U.S. 254

Syllabus

Pope Manufacturing Company v. Gormully, ante, 144 U. S. 224, applied to this case so far as the claim for recovery based upon contract is concerned.

Claims 2 and 3 in letters patent No. 249,278, issued November 8, 1881, to Albert E. Wallace for an axle bearing for vehicle wheels are void for want of novelty.

Claims 2 and 3 in letters patent No. 280,421, issued July 3, 1883, to Albert E. Wallace for an improvement upon the device covered by his patent of November 8, 1881, are also void for want of novelty.

This was a bill in equity for the infringement of letters patent No. 249,278, issued November 8, 1881, to Albert E. Wallace, for an axle bearing for vehicle wheels, and patent No. 280,421, issued July 3, 1883, to the same person, and for a similar device. In addition to the usual allegations of the bill for an infringement, it was alleged that the defendants were bound by certain covenants in the contract of December 1, 1884, entered into with the plaintiff, in which they acknowledged the validity of these patents and agreed not to manufacture ball bearings such as described and shown, and made the subject matter of its claim, and that they are therefore estopped to deny the validity of such patents, and that it was also stipulated in said agreement that the devices such as were being made by the defendants were contained in said chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 144 U. S. 255

patents, and covered by the claims thereof, whereby the defendants were estopped to deny infringement.

The court below held that the defendants were not estopped by this contract, that the patents were invalid, and that if valid they were not infringed, and dismissed the bill, from which decree the plaintiff appealed to this court. 34 F.8d 6.





Back
ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for chanrobles.com Search for www.chanrobles.com


Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



www.chanrobles.us




QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

Browse By ->> Volume


cralaw

Browse By ->> Year


cralaw

  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
 
RED