Delaware Seamless Tube Co. v. Shelby Steel Tube Co.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Appeal from Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
1Opinion of the Court
DALLAS, Circuit Judge.
The specification of error based upon the proposition that the complainant did not exhibit a sufficient title *929to the patent sued on has not been maintained. The suggestion that “the test” of whether title passed by the assignment in question is “whether such paper could be recorded” under section 4898 of the Revised Statutes (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3387) has been attentively considered, but cannot be accepted. That section provides that “every patent * * * shall be assignable in law by an instrument in writing,” and it makes an assignment void for omission to record…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Elizabeth v. Pavement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1878
- IVES v. HamiltonSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Hoyt v. HorneSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Shelby Steel Tube Co. v. Delaware Seamless Tube Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1907
- Smeeth v. Perkins & Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1903
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- United States v. United States Steel Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1915
- Veneer Machinery Co. v. Grand Rapids Chair Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1915
- Auditorium Ventilating Corp. v. Greater Rochester Properties, Inc.District Court, W.D. New York · 1929
- F. A. R. Liquidating Corp. v. McGraneryDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1953
- Canning v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1933
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.