Home/Supreme Court/Terhune v. Phillips

Terhune v. Phillips

99 U.S. 592, 25 L. Ed. 293, 1878 U.S. LEXIS 1578
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedJanuary 27, 1879
Docket106
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 99 U.S. 592 (Terhune v. Phillips) 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
Terhune v. Phillips, 99 U.S. 592, 25 L. Ed. 293, 1878 U.S. LEXIS 1578 (1879).

Opinion

*593 Mr. Justice Swayne

delivered the opinion of the court.

The determination of this case is controlled by Brown et al. v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37. We cannot fail to take judicial notice that the thing patented was known and in general use long before the issuing of the patent. The substitution of metal for wood was destitute both of patentable invention and utility. The admission of improper testimony, if it occurred, was, therefore, immaterial. The case of the appellant as it appears in the record, without any testimony, is clear and conclusive against him.

Decree affirmed.

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

Related

Gatch Wire Goods Co. v. W. A. Laid-Law Wire Co.
108 F.2d 433 (Seventh Circuit, 1939)
Monroe Cider Vinegar & Fruit Co. v. Riordan
280 F. 624 (Second Circuit, 1922)
Werk v. Parker
249 U.S. 130 (Supreme Court, 1919)
Luten v. Allen
254 F. 587 (D. Kansas, 1918)
Æolian Co. v. Wanamaker
221 F. 666 (D. Connecticut, 1915)
Baker v. F. A. Duncombe Mfg. Co.
146 F. 744 (Eighth Circuit, 1906)
Ft. Madison Water Co. v. City of Ft. Madison
110 F. 901 (U.S. Circuit Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 1900)
Shepard v. Tulare Irr. Dist.
94 F. 1 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California, 1899)
Black Diamond Coal Mining Co. v. Excelsior Coal Co.
156 U.S. 611 (Supreme Court, 1895)
Potts v. Creager
155 U.S. 597 (Supreme Court, 1895)
Henderson v. Tompkins
60 F. 758 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts, 1894)
State ex rel. Hudson v. Trammel
106 Mo. 510 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1891)
Root v. Sontag
47 F. 309 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California, 1891)
Potts v. Creager
44 F. 680 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio, 1891)
Florsheim v. Schilling
137 U.S. 64 (Supreme Court, 1890)
Eureka Vinegar Co. v. Gazette Printing Co.
35 F. 570 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1888)
Ligowski Clay-Pigeon Co. v. American Clay-Bird Co.
34 F. 328 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1888)
West v. Rae
33 F. 45 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1887)
Reed v. Lawrence
29 F. 915 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Michigan, 1886)
Wasson v. First National Bank
8 N.E. 97 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1886)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
99 U.S. 592, 25 L. Ed. 293, 1878 U.S. LEXIS 1578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/terhune-v-phillips-scotus-1879.