Bryce v. Dorr

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Michigan

Bryce v. Dorr

4 F. Cas. 521, 3 McLean 582

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Michigan

DecidedJune 15, 1845

StatusPublished

This text of 4 F. Cas. 521 (Bryce v. Dorr) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bryce v. Dorr, 4 F. Cas. 521, 3 McLean 582 (circtdmi 1845).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT. This action ■is brought for the violation of a patent right, by the defendants, in casting at their foundry water wheels for mills. It was proved that several wheels were cast on the same principle of the plaintiff’s patent. The model was furnished by Sage. Only two wheels were cast after the defendants came to the knowledge of the plaintiff’s patent

As the defendants were employed by Sage to cast the wheels, it was insisted that the action should have been brought against him, and was not maintainable against the defendants. But the court held the defendants were liable for an infringement of the patent. But, as the defendants had cast but a few wheels, and -with the exception of two of them, had acted without a knowledge of the plaintiff’s right, they suggested to the jury that nominal damages were all that the plaintiff could demand. Nominal damages were found.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT. This action ■is brought for the violation of a patent right, by the defendants, in casting at their foundry water wheels for mills. It was proved that several wheels were cast on the same principle of the plaintiff’s patent. The model was furnished by Sage. Only two wheels were cast after the defendants came to the knowledge of the plaintiff’s patent

As the defendants were employed by Sage to cast the wheels, it was insisted that the action should have been brought against him, and was not maintainable against the defendants. But the court held the defendants were liable for an infringement of the patent. But, as the defendants had cast but a few wheels, and -with the exception of two of them, had acted without a knowledge of the plaintiff’s right, they suggested to the jury that nominal damages were all that the plaintiff could demand. Nominal damages were found.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 F. Cas. 521, 3 McLean 582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bryce-v-dorr-circtdmi-1845.