St. Paul Plow Works v. Starling - 140 U.S. 184 (1891)


U.S. Supreme Court

St. Paul Plow Works v. Starling, 140 U.S. 184 (1891)

St. Paul Plow Works v. Starling

No. 329

Argued April 20-21, 1891

Decided May 11, 1891

140 U.S. 184

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Syllabus

By a written agreement signed by both parties, a patentee of a plow granted to another person the right to make and sell the patented plow under the patent, in a specified territory, the latter agreeing to make the plows in a good and workmanlike manner and advertise and sell them in the usual manner, and at a price not to exceed the usual price, and account twice a year for all plows sold, and pay a specified royalty for each plow sold. After making and selling some plows, the grantee gave notice to the patentee that he renounced the license. But he afterwards made and sold plows embracing a claim of the patent. The patentee sued him to recover the agreed royalty on those plows. He set up in defense want of novelty and of utility. The case was tried by the court without a jury, which found for the plaintiff on novelty and utility and gave judgment for him for the amount of the license fees.

Held:



Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.