TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Terhune v. Phillips

Terhune v. Phillips, 99 U.S. 592 (1879)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
January 27, 1879
Docket
No. 106
Judges
Swayne
Citations
99 U.S. 59225 L. Ed. 2931878 U.S. LEXIS 1578
Cited by 25
Headnotes
The court will take judicial notice of a thing which is in the common knowledge and use of the people through the country. It therefore.holes that reissued letters-patent No. 5748, granted to Matthias Terhune Jan. 27, 1874, for an alleged new and useful improvement in corner ’sockets for showcases, are void for want of novelty.
Summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois. This was a bill in equity by Matthias Terhune against John Phillips and Wellington Phillips, praying for an injunction restraining them from using or vending, or in any manner putting into practical operation or use, the corner sockets for show-cases for an improvement in which reissued letters-patent No. 5748 had been granted to the complainant by the United States, Jan. 27, 1874. It appears by the specification forming a pait.of the letters-patent that the invention for which they were granted “ has for its object to provide a means for connecting the ends of the horizontal and vertical members of a show-case frame; and to that end it consists in a metallic corner-piece, provided with sockets adapted to receive the ends of the different members, whereby the same are firmly connected at the corners of the case.” The court below dismissed the bill, whereupon the complainant brought the case here.

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

Opinion — Swayne

*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.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 25 cases

View all citing references →
1880–1881: 31882–1883: 11884–1885: 11886–1887: 31888–1889: 21890–1891: 41894–1895: 31898–1899: 11900–1901: 11906–1907: 11914–1915: 11918–1919: 21922–1923: 11938–1939: 118802026peak 1890 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. King v. Gallun109 U.S. 99 (1883)
  2. Monroe Cider Vinegar & Fruit Co. v. Riordan280 F. 624 (2d Cir. 1922) · Dissent
  3. Baker v. F. A. Duncombe Mfg. Co.146 F. 744 (8th Cir. 1906)
  4. Gatch Wire Goods Co. v. W. A. Laid-Law Wire Co.108 F.2d 433 (7th Cir. 1939)
  5. Luten v. Allen254 F. 587 (D. Kan. 1918)
  6. Æolian Co. v. Wanamaker221 F. 666 (D. Conn. 1915)

Most recent

  1. Gatch Wire Goods Co. v. W. A. Laid-Law Wire Co.108 F.2d 433 (7th Cir. 1939)
  2. Monroe Cider Vinegar & Fruit Co. v. Riordan280 F. 624 (2d Cir. 1922) · Dissent
  3. Werk v. Parker249 U.S. 130 (1919)
  4. Luten v. Allen254 F. 587 (D. Kan. 1918)
  5. Æolian Co. v. Wanamaker221 F. 666 (D. Conn. 1915)
  6. Baker v. F. A. Duncombe Mfg. Co.146 F. 744 (8th Cir. 1906)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Brown v. Piper, 91 U.S. 37 (1875) 327

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