Legal Opinion

Emerson v. Hubbard

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania

Decided March 2, 1888PublishedCited by 5 opinions

In Equity. Sur motion for leave to ñle a supplemental bill, which was exhibited to the court.

1Opinion of the CourtAciiesoN, J.

It seems to be quite plain that the assignments set up in the original bill transferred the title to the letters patent only, and did not carry the claims for previous infringements. Moore v. Marsh, 7 Wall. 515. Now, giving to the allegations contained in the proposed supplemental bill the fullest effect, the plaintiffs’ alleged equitable title to those claims rests upon the more intention of the parties to those assignments thereby to transfer them. But no such intention appears on the face of the instruments. At best it is a case of naked intention verbally expressed, but not carried out.…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Moore v. MarshSupreme Court of the United States · 1869

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Herman v. Detroit Shipbuilding Co.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1924
  2. Eveland v. Detroit Machine Tool Co.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1927
  3. John L. Rie, Inc. v. Shelly Bros., Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1973
  4. Etten v. Lovell Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1950
  5. Zurich General Accident & Liability Ins. Co. v. BrunsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1926

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API