Searle v. Hill
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Mahaslca District Oov/rt. This is an action in equity to compel the specific performance of a contract to assign an interest in a patent-right. There was a decree as prayed in the petition. Defendant appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtReed, J.
There is no controversy as to the facts in the case. The parties each owned an interest in a patent-right covering a window blind; plaintiffs’ interest covering certain states and territories, and defendant’s covering certain other states and territories. They were desirous of procuring a patent on a device that was regarded as an improvement on the article covered by the original patent, and it *368was agreed that defendant should proceed to Washington city, and prosecute an application for said patent,'and that plaintiffs should pay one-half the expenses incident to the application, which it…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Ager v. MurraySupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Binney v. AnnanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
- Pitts v. WhitmanU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine · 1843
3Cited by8 opinions
- Spears v. . WillisNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
- Tschirgi v. Merchants National Bank of Cedar RapidsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1962
- Vail v. HammondSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1891
- Cook v. Sterling Electric Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana · 1902
- Straubel v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1933
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.