Rich v. Hotchkiss
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was a bill in chancery, praying for a discovery, an account and an injunction. The bill stated, That the plaintiffs being the proprietors of the exclusive right to use Woodworth's patent planing machine in the county of New-Haven, and the defendant having been in the use of a machine for the same purposes, in all its substantial parts similar, in violation of the plaintiffs’ right, and being sensible of the injustice thereby done to the plaintiffs, he, on the 6th of…
Read the full summary
This was a bill in chancery, praying for a discovery, an account and an injunction. The bill stated, That the plaintiffs being the proprietors of the exclusive right to use Woodworth's patent planing machine in the county of New-Haven, and the defendant having been in the use of a machine for the same purposes, in all its substantial parts similar, in violation of the plaintiffs’ right, and being sensible of the injustice thereby done to the plaintiffs, he, on the 6th of December, 1842, entered into the following covenant with the plaintiffs: “This agreement made by and between Ira Atwater…
1Opinion of the Court
Williams, Ch. J.
The defendant claims, that patents are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States; and therefore, this court will not take jurisdiction of this case. That the validity of patent rights, is a subject peculiarly within the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States, is true. But it is equally true, that when they come in question collaterally, their validity must become a subject of inquiry in the state courts. Thus, in a suit upon a note, if it is claimed that the note was given for a patent right, and the patent is invalid, and so there was no…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Carver v. JacksonSupreme Court of the United States · 1830
- Jackson, ex rel. Shaw v. SpeakNew York Supreme Court · 1831
- Cross v. HuntlyNew York Supreme Court · 1835
- Wright v. TuttleSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1810
3Cited by34 opinions
- Pratt v. Paris Gas Light & Coke Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Lawrence v. DanaU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1869
- Southern Surety Co. v. MacMillan Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1932
- Continental Store Service Co. v. . ClarkNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
- Southern Colonization Co. v. DerflerSupreme Court of Florida · 1917
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.