Troy Iron and Nail Factory v. Odiorne

THIS was an appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts, sitting as a court of equity.

It was a bill filed by the Troy Iron and Nail Factory, a manufacturing corporation established in the State of New York, to restrain the Odiornes from infringing certain letters-patent granted to Henry Burden, on the 2d of September, 1840, and by him assigned to the complainant.

The respondents filed an answer, taking various grounds of defence, which it is not necessary, under the circumstances of the case, to particularize. At October term, 1851, the following stipulation was signed by the parties, and filed in the cause:--

The defendants agree not to deny the validity of the complainants' patent, provided they make out their title to the said letters-patent to be good.

They also agree not to deny that the machine complained of in the complainants' bill, is an infringement on the patent granted to H. Burden, on August 4, 1840. [Sept. 2.]

If the complainants shall establish their title to the letters-patent aforesaid, the proper decree may be entered for the complainants, unless the defendants shall prove that the spike machine used by them, and complained of in the bill aforesaid, was constructed prior to the alleged application of H. Burden, made April 18, 1839, for letters-patent therefor, according to the provisions of the statute of the United States, 1839, ch. 88, sec. 7; or was the result of an independent, original invention, prior in time to the invention of the said Burden; in either of which cases the proper decree shall be entered for defendants.

C. P. CURTIS, JR., Plaintiff's attorney.

J. A. ANDREW, for defendants.

Much testimony was taken upon the subjects involved, and in December, 1852, the circuit court dismissed the bill.

From this decree, the complainant appealed to this court.

The case was argued by Mr. George T. Curtis for the appellants; no counsel appearing for the appellee.

The argument upon the point upon which the court rested its decision, consisted of an examination of the evidence bearing upon it, which it is not necessary to state.

Mr. Justice CATRON delivered the opinion of the court.