Jonathan Mills Manuf'g Co. v. Whitehurst
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio. The action in the court below was in equity to enjoin the infringement of a United States patent, No. 267,098, issued to Jonathan Mills, November 7, 1882, upon an application filed June 30, 1882, for an improvement in a device for bolting in flour mills, known as the “centrifugal bolt or reel.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio. The action in the court below was in equity to enjoin the infringement of a United States patent, No. 267,098, issued to Jonathan Mills, November 7, 1882, upon an application filed June 30, 1882, for an improvement in a device for bolting in flour mills, known as the “centrifugal bolt or reel.” The bill averred that the complainant, by direct and mesne assignments, In writing, had become the sole and exclusive owner of the letters patent sued on. The bill was filed against M. C. Whitehurst, C. D. Whitehurst,…
1Opinion of the CourtTaft, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts). We concur with the circuit court in the view that, by the recitals in the assignment of Jonathan Mills to the complainant, the Jonathan Mills Manufacturing Company, the latter was put upon inquiry as to the interest of the Smith Middlings Purifier Company and must be charged with notice of every fact with reference to the company’s interest in the patent which diligent and honest inquiry would have developed. It is well settled that, when a purchaser cannot make out Ms title but through a conveyance which leads to a fact, he will he affected with notice of that…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Oliver v. PiattSupreme Court of the United States · 1845
- In Re ClaasenSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Cordova v. HoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1873
- Brush v. WareSupreme Court of the United States · 1841
- Germania Safety-Vault & Trust Co. v. BoyntonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1896
3Cited by7 opinions
- Rodgers v. Bankers National BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1930
- Chamberlain v. the Amalgamated Sugar Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1926
- National Cash Register Co. v. New Columbus Watch Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1904
- United States v. BennettDistrict Court, E.D. Washington · 1944
- F. A. R. Liquidating Corp. v. McGraneryDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1953
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.