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


JACOBS V. BAKER, 74 U. S. 295 (1868)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 74 U. S. 295 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Jacobs v. Baker, 74 U.S. 7 Wall. 295 295 (1868)

Jacobs v. Baker

74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 295

Syllabus

1. Semble that an improvement in the plan of constructing a jail is not a subject of patent within the Patent Acts of 1836 or 1842.

2. Jacobs was not the first inventor of the improvements patented to him in 1859 and 1860 for improvements in the construction of jails.

Jacobs filed a bill in the Circuit Court for Southern Ohio against Baker, seeking relief for the infringement of four separate patents which had been granted to him, Jacobs, for improvements in the construction of prisons. The bill set forth the different patents.

The first, dated January 7, 1859, was for an improvement in the construction of prisons, which the complainant set forth in his specification with very numerous plates and designs. The claim concluded thus:

"What I claim as my invention and desire to secure by letters patent is a secret passage, or guard-chamber, around the outside of an iron-plate jail and between said jail and a surrounding enclosure, constructed and arranged substantially as described, for the purpose set forth."

[The purpose was to allow the keeper to oversee and overhear the prisoners without their being conscious of his presence.]

The next patent was dated 20 December, 1859, and purported to be for an "improvement in iron-plate jails." The claim was for

"the improved iron walls for the same, consisting

Page 74 U. S. 296

of the following parts arranged and united as set forth, to-wit: the entire wall plates (A) having their edges closely abutting, the joint plates (e) united to and uniting the plate A, by rivets (i), which have their riveted ends inwards, and countersunk to the depth of the thickness of the plate A, in the manner and for the purposes herein set forth."

This specification was also accompanied by numerous plates.

The third patent, dated 21 February, 1860, was for an "improvement in joining plates of metal," and was stated to be specially applicable to prisons. The claim was for

"the construction of the joint, made by means of the closely abutting plates (A A), and the flat and semicylindrical plates B B, and rivets (c), substantially in the manner and for the purpose set forth."

This too had numerous drawings.

The fourth patent, dated 24 July, 1860, was for an "improvement in iron prisons." The claim was for

"constructing and arranging plate iron cells in jails separately from each other, with vertical spaces (e) between the cells upon the same level, and horizontal spaces between cells arranged one above another, substantially as and for the purpose described."

This was also profusely illustrated by drawings.

The bill, which averred that the complainant was the original and first inventor of all these improvements and that the defendant was an infringer of his patents, asked that the defendant might answer the bill under oath and be compelled to state how extensively, and where he had sold the improvements patented, and to describe his modes of construction &c.

The defendant did answer on oath, denying that the improvements were original with the complainant or new but averring that they had been long in use, and setting out various jails in different parts of the country where they had been used in 1855, 1857, 1858 &c., all before the date of the patents relied on.

A large amount of testimony was taken on both sides, upon which the court below, considering that the defendant had established his case, dismissed the bill with costs. The case was now here on an appeal by the patentee. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 74 U. S. 297





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