Carleton v. Bird
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On Report. Action of debt to recover a license fee on lime manufactured by the defendants, by means of the apparatus and methods of the plaintiff for burning lime, as set out in two patents granted to one Gran-ville E. Carleton for calcining stone in the manufacture of lime and cement, and by him set over and assigned to his wife, the plaintiff. The case appears in the opinion.
Read the full summary
On Report. Action of debt to recover a license fee on lime manufactured by the defendants, by means of the apparatus and methods of the plaintiff for burning lime, as set out in two patents granted to one Gran-ville E. Carleton for calcining stone in the manufacture of lime and cement, and by him set over and assigned to his wife, the plaintiff. The case appears in the opinion. Parties: The transfer of “ right, title and interest ” is an assignment “ in the nature of a quitclaim deed, of whatever right title or interest the plaintiff has in the patent specified”. Gilmore v. Aiken, 118 Mass.…
1Opinion of the CourtWiswell, C. J.
Under date of March 12, 1889, two letters-patent, numbered respectively 399, 495 and 399, 496, were granted to one Granville E. Carleton, one of which related to an improved kiln, and the other to a new method, for calcining stone in the manufacture of lime or cement.
*186On January 2, 1898, the patentee, while still the owner of both patents, entered into a written contract under seal with the defendants, by the terms of which he gave to them the right to use the apparatus and the method covered by these two letters-patent in certain of their lime kilns; and the defendants, upon their part,…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Pratt v. Paris Gas Light & Coke Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Starin v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- James G. Wilson v. George A. Sanford and Robert G. MusgroveSupreme Court of the United States · 1851
- Hartell v. TilghmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Albright v. TeasSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Sinclair Refining Co. v. Jenkins Petroleum Process Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1938
- Hold Stitch Fabric MacH. Co. v. May Hosiery MillsTennessee Supreme Court · 1946
- Maxim v. E. L. Tebbets Spool Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1934