TERHUNE
v.
PHILLIPS

U.S. | 1878-10-01
99 U.S. 592 Supreme Court of the United States (1878) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 25 L. Ed. 293 · 1878 U.S. LEXIS 1578 · SCDB 1878-094
Cited by 21 cases
Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Swayne

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.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (12 total)

  • Potts v. Creager, 155 U.S. 597 (U.S. 1895)
    …the steel bars of the Potts cylinder was a mere change of material for the more perfect accomplishment of the same work, it would, within the familiar cases of Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 11 How. 248; Hicks v. Kelsey, 18 Wall. 670; Terhume v. Phillips, 99 U. S. 592, and Brown v. District of Columbia, 130 U. S. 87, not' involve invention. But not only did the glass bars prove' so brittle in their use for polishing wood that they broke and were dis [*609] carded after a half an hour’s trial, but they would undou…
  • United States v. Am. Bell Tel. Co., 128 U.S. 315 (U.S. 1888)
  • Vicksburg & Meridian R.R. Co. v. Putnam, 118 U.S. 545 (U.S. 1886)

Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw