Phillips v. Combstock

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana

Phillips v. Combstock

19 F. Cas. 509, 4 McLean 525

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana

DecidedMay 15, 1849

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 19 F. Cas. 509 (Phillips v. Combstock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Phillips v. Combstock, 19 F. Cas. 509, 4 McLean 525 (circtdin 1849).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OP THE COURT. This is an action for the violation of a patent-right. The defendant filed a special plea, setting up that the right was not in the plaintiff; a previous discovery; and that the right was of no value. And a question was raised whether a special plea could be filed, or whether the plaintiff was not bound to plead the general issue and give notice as authorized by the statute. The court held that a special plea may be filed. That a right to plead the general issue, and give notice by the statute, was an enlargement of the defendant’s mode of defence, but that it did not take away his right to plead specially. But the court held also, that as the plea was not put in thirty days before the term, the plaintiff was entitled to a continuance. The statute provides that the notice under the general issue shall be filed thirty days before the term. This entitles the plaintiff to the thirty days whether the matter be set up by a plea or notice.

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

OPINION OP THE COURT. This is an action for the violation of a patent-right. The defendant filed a special plea, setting up that the right was not in the plaintiff; a previous discovery; and that the right was of no value. And a question was raised whether a special plea could be filed, or whether the plaintiff was not bound to plead the general issue and give notice as authorized by the statute. The court held that a special plea may be filed. That a right to plead the general issue, and give notice by the statute, was an enlargement of the defendant’s mode of defence, but that it did not take away his right to plead specially. But the court held also, that as the plea was not put in thirty days before the term, the plaintiff was entitled to a continuance. The statute provides that the notice under the general issue shall be filed thirty days before the term. This entitles the plaintiff to the thirty days whether the matter be set up by a plea or notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 F. Cas. 509, 4 McLean 525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phillips-v-combstock-circtdin-1849.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack