Russell v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
APPEAL PROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. This was an action for $100,000, brought in the Court of Claims by the appellants, upon an implied contract, asserted to have arisen from the use by the United States of Krag-Jorgensen rifles, which rifles contained, it is claimed, certain features, which were the invention of Russell, one of the appellants. The United States demurred to the petition, and the demurrer was sustained.
Read the full summary
APPEAL PROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. This was an action for $100,000, brought in the Court of Claims by the appellants, upon an implied contract, asserted to have arisen from the use by the United States of Krag-Jorgensen rifles, which rifles contained, it is claimed, certain features, which were the invention of Russell, one of the appellants. The United States demurred to the petition, and the demurrer was sustained. The facts as presented by the petition are as follows: That on or about August 3, 1880, letters patent No. 230,823, for certain new and useful improvements in firearms, were…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice McKenna
It is conceded that a contract must be established to entitle appellants to recover, and, it is contended, that one is established by the correspondence between the Ordnance Department and Russell in regard to the use of the “ Army rifle,” which, it is claimed, contained features of Russell’s invention. That is, not an express contract is claimed, but an implied contract is claimed. This court has held that under the act of March 3,1887, 21 Stat. 505, c. 359, defining claims of which the Court of Claims had jurisdiption, the court had no jurisdiction of demands against the United States…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Schillinger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- United States v. Berdan Fire-Arms Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1895
- United States v. PalmerSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
3Cited by42 opinions
- Hercules, Inc. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Crozier v. Fried. Krupp AktiengesellschaftSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Peabody v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- William Cramp & Sons Ship & Engine Building Co. v. International Curtis Marine Turbine Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1918
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.