Munson v. Mayor, Alderman and Commonalty of New York City

Supreme Court

Munson v. Mayor, Alderman and Commonalty of New York City

124 U.S. 601, 8 S. Ct. 622, 31 L. Ed. 586, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 1897

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedFebruary 13, 1888

Docket160

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 124 U.S. 601 (Munson v. Mayor, Alderman and Commonalty of New York City) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Munson v. Mayor, Alderman and Commonalty of New York City, 124 U.S. 601, 8 S. Ct. 622, 31 L. Ed. 586, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 1897 (1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Me. Justice Gbay,

after stating the case as above reported, delivered the opinion of the court.

What the plaintiff, in different parts of his specification, calls his “ improvement,” his “ system,” and his “ invention,” consists in providing one or more blank books, resembling common scrap-books, of which each page will hold a bond and its coupons, and has a heading describing the bond, and all the pages are numbered and ruled into spaces, in which the bonds and the coupons, on being presented and- paid, may be pasted in the order of their numbers — the bonds on the successive pages, and the coupons of each bond on the same page with it — or, when any bond or coupon is paid without being surrendered, memoranda concerning it may be made. The claim is for the so preserving, filing and verifying of the bonds and coupons, and for the book so constructed and used.

If upon the face of the specification this could be considered as' an “ art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter,” within the meaning of the patent laws, (upon which we express no opinion,) it is quite clear that, in the state of previous knowledge upon the subject, there was no patentable novelty *605 in tbe plaintiff’s scheme; inasmuch as the only difference between it and the earlier scheme of "Warren was that in Warren’s books there was no place for the bonds, and the coupons were grouped according to their dates of payment, instead of being grouped together with the bonds to which they respectively belonged. The providing of spaces for the bonds, and the change in the order of arrangement of the coupons, cannot, upon the most liberal construction of the patent laws, be held to involve any invention.

Decree reversed, wild case remanded to • the Circuit Court, with directions to (dismiss the. bill; the original plaintiff to pay the costs in both counts.

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

Me. Justice Gbay,

after stating the case as above reported, delivered the opinion of the court.

What the plaintiff, in different parts of his specification, calls his “ improvement,” his “ system,” and his “ invention,” consists in providing one or more blank books, resembling common scrap-books, of which each page will hold a bond and its coupons, and has a heading describing the bond, and all the pages are numbered and ruled into spaces, in which the bonds and the coupons, on being presented and- paid, may be pasted in the order of their numbers — the bonds on the successive pages, and the coupons of each bond on the same page with it — or, when any bond or coupon is paid without being surrendered, memoranda concerning it may be made. The claim is for the so preserving, filing and verifying of the bonds and coupons, and for the book so constructed and used.

If upon the face of the specification this could be considered as' an “ art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter,” within the meaning of the patent laws, (upon which we express no opinion,) it is quite clear that, in the state of previous knowledge upon the subject, there was no patentable novelty *605 in tbe plaintiff’s scheme; inasmuch as the only difference between it and the earlier scheme of "Warren was that in Warren’s books there was no place for the bonds, and the coupons were grouped according to their dates of payment, instead of being grouped together with the bonds to which they respectively belonged. The providing of spaces for the bonds, and the change in the order of arrangement of the coupons, cannot, upon the most liberal construction of the patent laws, be held to involve any invention.

Decree reversed, wild case remanded to • the Circuit Court, with directions to (dismiss the. bill; the original plaintiff to pay the costs in both counts.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 U.S. 601, 8 S. Ct. 622, 31 L. Ed. 586, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 1897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/munson-v-mayor-alderman-and-commonalty-of-new-york-city-scotus-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack