THE UNITED STATES, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOHN GUSMAN
Mr. Justice CATRON delivered the'opinion of the court.
Gusman claims under the heirs of Rillieux, and relies on the same evidences of title that they do; and his vendors having had no title when they assumed to convey the land, it is ordered, that the decree in this case be also reversed, and the petition dismissed
Order. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed by •this court, that the decree of the said District Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby, reversed and annulled, and that this cause be, and the samé is hereby, remanded to the said District Court, with directions to dismiss the petition of the claimant.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Hapgood v. Hewitt, 119 U.S. 226 (U.S. 1886)…should make during the term of service. - Whatever license resulted to the Missouri corporation, from the facts of the case, to use the invention, was one confined to that corporation, and not assignable by it. Troy Iron & Nail Factory v. Corning, 14 How. 193, 216; Oliver v. Rumford Chemical Works, 109 U. S. 75, 82. The Missouri corporation was dissolved. Its stockholders organized a' new corporation under the1 laws of Illinois, which may naturally have succeeded to the business of the prior corporation,…
-
Lane & Bodley Co. v. Locke, 150 U.S. 193 (U.S. 1893)…part of its business, which right, if it existed, was a merely personal one, and not transferable, and was extinguished with the dissolution of'the corporation. This ruling was based on two previous decisions: Troy Iron and Nail Factory v. Corning, 14 How. 193, and Oliver v. Rumford Chemical Works, 109 U. S. 75. In both these cases there were formal assignments, without- having words or clauses in them showing that they were meant to be assignable, and the hold [*196] ing of the court was that the contrac…
-
Oliver & Others v. Rumford Chem. Works, 109 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1883)…l carry the right conferred to any one but the licensee personally, unless there are. express words to show an intent to extend the right to an executor, administrator or assignee, voluntary or involuntary. In Troy Iron and Nail Factory v. Corning, 14 How. 193, 216, this court said: “A mere license to a party, without having his assigns or equivalent words to them, showing that it was meant to be assignable, is only the grant of a personal power to the licensee, and is not transferable by him to another.…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence