TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Parker v. Ferguson

Parker v. Ferguson, 18 F. Cas. 1126 (1849)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York · Historical Federal Courts
Decided
June 15, 1849
Judges
Nelson
Citations
18 F. Cas. 11261 Blatchf. 407
Headnotes
Case No. 10,733. ’ Patents — N o veltt. Where a water wheel was constructed for a person who lived twelve miles distant from the place of construction, and was taken away by him to be put into a mill, and was never seen afterwards by the witness who testified to and assisted in its construction, the wheel having been a perfect wheel, and constructed before the plaintiff’s, and identical with it: held, that the evidence was sufficient, if believed, to establish the want of novelty in the plaintiff’s wheel, although there was no evidence that the prior wheel was ever actually used. TCited in Wollensak v. Reiher, 22 Fed. 651; Kappes v. Hartung, 23 Fed. 188.] [For other cases involving this patent, see note to Parker v. Hatfield, Case No. 10,736.]
Summary
This was an action [by Zebulon Parker against Jonathan Ferguson] for the infringement of letters patent granted to Zebulon Parker and Austin Parker, October 19th, 1829, for “an improvement in the application of hydraulic power,” and extended by the patent office for seven years from October 19th, 1843.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Nelson

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

On the trial béfore NELSON, Circuit Justice,

the defendant set up the defence of a want of novelty in the invention, and to support it introduced a witness, Hosea W. Holmes, who swore that in 1819, in Stonington, Connecticut, he assisted in constructing a water wheel embracing the principle of the patentee’s invention; that it was constructed for a man who lived twelve miles distant from Stoning-ton, and was carried away by him to be put into a mill; and that the witness never saw it afterwards. _

In charging the jury, NELSON, Circuit Justice, remarked, that if the wheel spoken of by the witness, Holmes, was constructed before the plaintiff’s wheel, and was a perfect wheel, and was taken away to be used, the evidence, if believed, was sufficient to establish the fact of a want of novelty in the plaintiff’s wheel, although there was no evidence that the prior wheel was ever actually used.

The jury found a verdict for the defendant

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1884–1885: 11898–1899: 11942–1943: 118842026peak 1884 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Picard v. United Aircraft Corporation128 F.2d 632 (2d Cir. 1942)
  2. Mason v. Hepburn13 App. D.C. 86 (D.C. Cir. 1898)
  3. Stitt v. Eastern R. Co.22 F. 649 (1884)

Most recent

  1. Picard v. United Aircraft Corporation128 F.2d 632 (2d Cir. 1942)
  2. Mason v. Hepburn13 App. D.C. 86 (D.C. Cir. 1898)
  3. Stitt v. Eastern R. Co.22 F. 649 (1884)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list