Marsh v. Shepard
| Decision Date | 14 March 1887 |
| Citation | Marsh v. Shepard, 120 U. S. 595 (1887) |
| Parties | MARSH v. SHEPARD. |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN.
Mr. Edward J. Hill for the motion.
Mr. R.A. Parker and Mr. Don M. Dickinson opposing.
This motion is denied. The sole ground of the application is, that since the appeal the Supreme Court of Michigan has, in a suit between the same parties, enjoined these appellants from making any claim against the appellee for the use of the patented invention which is the subject matter of the suit, and has required them to release all the claims and demands which they have been prosecuting.
Marsh and Le Fever oppose this motion, and Scott has no right to dismiss for them.
Motion...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
3 cases
-
Green v. Maddox
...he was subrogated to all the rights of creditors or heirs. 24 Ark. 63; 52 Ark. 1; 6 Ballard, Real Estate, 279; 2 Id. 535; 73 Ark. 197; 120 U.S. 595; 44 Ark. 504; Kirby's Dig., § 3. The court erred in crediting appellee with all rents received from the property. Kirby's Dig., §§ 2754-2757; 4......
-
Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Wirt Adams
...52 N. W. 522, it was held that a former adjudication could not be set up by motion after trial and verdict. All that was held in Marsh v. Shepard, 120 U. S. 595, sub nom. Marsh v. Nichols, S. & Co. 30 L. ed. 794, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 704, was that one of several appellants cannot dismiss an appe......
-
MARSH V. NICHOLS
...contested the cause in the state courts and sued out the writ of error to this Court. This cause is the one referred to in Marsh v. Shepard, ante, 120 U. S. 595, "the suit in chancery between the same parties, with reference to alleged infringements of the same letters patent, decided in th......