Price v. Kelly

Supreme Court

Price v. Kelly

154 U.S. 669, 14 S. Ct. 1208, 1881 U.S. LEXIS 1500

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedOctober 25, 1881

DocketNo. 13

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 154 U.S. 669 (Price v. Kelly) 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

Price v. Kelly, 154 U.S. 669, 14 S. Ct. 1208, 1881 U.S. LEXIS 1500 (1881).

Pincite

Opinion

•Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case is very imperfectly presented. No one appears for the appellee, and the record is incomplete. The bill charges the appellee with an infringement of certain letters patent issued to and owned by the appellant. The answer attacks the validity of the patent, and denies the infringement. The court below, with[670]*670out passing on the other questions, held there was no infringement. The appellee evidently claimed under a patent to himself, which, with the accompanying drawings- and certain models, was in evidence. This evidence is not before us. Neither the patent nor the drawings are in the record, and the models have not been brought up. Nor have we been able to find anywhere in the record a satisfactory description of the structure which the appellee uses. The burden of proving the infringement is on the appellant. The necessary proof in this respect has not been made, and the decree below is consequently Affirmed.

Mr. J. J. Noah and Mr. C. K. Davis for appellant. No appearance for appellee.

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

•Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case is very imperfectly presented. No one appears for the appellee, and the record is incomplete. The bill charges the appellee with an infringement of certain letters patent issued to and owned by the appellant. The answer attacks the validity of the patent, and denies the infringement. The court below, with[670]*670out passing on the other questions, held there was no infringement. The appellee evidently claimed under a patent to himself, which, with the accompanying drawings- and certain models, was in evidence. This evidence is not before us. Neither the patent nor the drawings are in the record, and the models have not been brought up. Nor have we been able to find anywhere in the record a satisfactory description of the structure which the appellee uses. The burden of proving the infringement is on the appellant. The necessary proof in this respect has not been made, and the decree below is consequently Affirmed.

Mr. J. J. Noah and Mr. C. K. Davis for appellant. No appearance for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 U.S. 669, 14 S. Ct. 1208, 1881 U.S. LEXIS 1500, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/price-v-kelly-scotus-1881.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack