St. Paul Plough Works v. Starling
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE' CIRCUIT COURT OE THE UNITED STATES EOR THE DISTRICT OE MINNESOTA. Motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction. The case is stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Grat
The original action was brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota by a citizen of Nebraska against a corporation of Minnesota, for breach of an agreement in writing, dated December 17, 1877, by which the plaintiff granted to the defendant the right to make and sell within a defined territory a certain kind of plough, under letters patent granted August 18, 1874, to the plaintiff for an improvement in ploughs, (of which he alleged in his complaint that he was the first and original inventor,) and the defendant agreed to make such ploughs in a good and…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- James G. Wilson v. George A. Sanford and Robert G. MusgroveSupreme Court of the United States · 1851
- Dale Tile Manufacturing Co. v. HyattSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Brown v. ShannonSupreme Court of the United States · 1858
3Cited by11 opinions
- Pratt v. Paris Gas Light & Coke Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Marsh v. Nichols, Shepard & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Waterman v. . ShipmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Henry Gehring Co. v. McCueOhio Court of Appeals · 1926
- Carleton v. BirdSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1900
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.