May v. Chaffee
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota
2 [Final hearing upon pleadings and proofs. Suit brought upon letters patent [No. 33,-370] for an “improvement in stave machines.” granted to William Sisson, September 24, ÍSC1. [Two defenses were set up in the answer of the defendants [Henry Chaffee and others]; (1) That Sisson was not the first and original inventor.
Read the full summary
2 [Final hearing upon pleadings and proofs. Suit brought upon letters patent [No. 33,-370] for an “improvement in stave machines.” granted to William Sisson, September 24, ÍSC1. [Two defenses were set up in the answer of the defendants [Henry Chaffee and others]; (1) That Sisson was not the first and original inventor. (2) That Fuller & Ford, of the city of Chicago and state of Illinois, obtained a license from the owners of the patent to manufacture and sell in the city of Chicago, but not elsewhere, the patented machines, and a sale by them to the defendants at Chicago, of a machine which…
1Opinion of the Court
NELSON, District Judge.
The whole controversy turns upon the construction and ex*1217tent of the grant to Fuller & Ford, executed by Jones, as attorney of Sisson & Sage. Before considering this instrument with reference to its language, and the rights conferred by it, we will notice an objection made by the complainants’ counsel to the power of attorney to F. E. Jones, to wit: that A. A. Jones, who, it is alleged, was an assignee of a portion of the patent and invention, did not execute the grant to Fuller & Ford. It is claimed that A. A. Jones having signed the instrument, in connection with…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Marsh v. Newark Heating & Ventilating Machine Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1894
- Webster v. EllsworthU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Michigan · 1888