Evans v. Chambers
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
BY THE COURT.
The second ground for a nonsuit is not to be gotten over. If the allegations and suggestions of the petition are substantially recited, it will be sufficient But in this case they are not All the recitals in the patent refer to the elevators, and other parts of the mill machinery, except, that the use of the hopperboy is incidentally mentioned; without any description of its use, and the manner in which it is to work. But the petition gives a minute and full description of it, which’substantially ought to have been recited; particularly in this case, where the patent does not in any manner refer to the petition which has been read. Not that we mean to say that such a reference was necessary, if the suggestion of the petition had been substantially recited. Non-suit awarded.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.