PRATHER

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Simms v. Simms, 175 U.S. 162 (U.S. 1899)
  …rt, under such an enactment, the'matter in dispute must have been money, or something the value of which can be estimated in money. Kurtz v. Moffitt, 115 U. S. 487, 495, 496, and cases there cited; Durham v. Seymour, 161 U. S. 235; Perrine v. Slack, 164 U. S. 452. In support of the motion to dismiss this appeal because the decree below concerned divorce and alimony only, the appellee relied on Barber v. Barber, 21 How. 582. In that case, a majority of this court held that a wife who had obtained against her…
• De la Rama v. De la Rama, 201 U.S. 303 (U.S. 1906)
  …cent cases), and for the further reason that a suit for divorce in itself involves no pecuniary value. Barber v. Barber, 21 How. 582, and the analogous cases of Kurtz v. Moffitt, 115 U. S. 487; Durham v. Seymour, 161 U. S. 235, and Perrine v. Slack. 164 U. S. 452. [*308] But the general rule above stated has no application to the jurisdiction of the territorial courts, or of, the appellate jurisdiction' of this court over thóse courts. Hence,, we held in Simms v. Simms, 175 U. S. 162, that an appeal lies fr…
• Stoody Co. v. Mills Alloys, Inc., 67 F.2d 807 (9th Cir. 1933)
  …eir application for a patent upon the ground that Caro was a prior inventor.” A similar view was expressed by Judge Lacombe in National Mach. Co. v. Wheeler [*812] & Wilson Mfg. Co. (C. C. A. 2) 79 F. 432, 441, 442, certiorari denied 160 U. S. 722, 17 S. Ct. 997, 41 L. Ed. 1188: “It is contended by complainant that not only is the question of priority res adjudicata between the parties to the suit, but that defendant is also preeluded from contesting the validity and scope of claims 21 and 22 of the patent…