Baldwin v. Sibley
United States Circuit Court
At law. Action on the case [by Stephen K. Baldwin against Amos Sibley and Delano Sibley] for damages for an infringement of a patent right. [On motion for a new trial. Overruled.] Stephen K. Baldwin was the patentee of a machine for cutting shoe-pegs, under letters-patent [No. 2,725] dated the 16th of July, 1842. The patent was renewed on the 8th of July, 1856, and reissued [No. 409] in the following November.
Read the full summary
At law. Action on the case [by Stephen K. Baldwin against Amos Sibley and Delano Sibley] for damages for an infringement of a patent right. [On motion for a new trial. Overruled.] Stephen K. Baldwin was the patentee of a machine for cutting shoe-pegs, under letters-patent [No. 2,725] dated the 16th of July, 1842. The patent was renewed on the 8th of July, 1856, and reissued [No. 409] in the following November. The writ contained three counts, and alleged in effect the construction and putting in practice of twenty machines which imitated the invention of the plaintiff. As to everything except…
1Opinion of the Court
CLIFFORD, Circuit Justice.
It was insisted by the, counsel for the defendants that the deed, when properly construed, authorized the grantee to make and use, and vend to others to be used, any number of machines he might see fit to make and sell within the territory defined and described in the deed. To that proposition it will be sufficient to say that the deed contains no words authorizing the grantee to make and construct any machine whatever. It purports to convey one of the machines, and the right to use and sell the same within the described territory, dearly leaving it to be inferred…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Waterman v. ShipmanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1893
- Union Switch & Signal Co. v. Johnson Railroad Signal Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1894