Skip to content


Price Vs. Kelly - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number154 U.S. 669
AppellantPrice
RespondentKelly
Excerpt:
price v. kelly - 154 u.s. 669 (1881) u.s. supreme court price v. kelly, 154 u.s. 669 (1881) price v. kelly no. 13 submitted october 12, 1881 decided october 25, 1881 154 u.s. 669 appeal from the circuit court of the united states for the district of minnesota syllabus affirmed on the facts. mr. chief justice waite delivered the opinion of the court. this case is very imperfectly presented. no one appears for the appellee, and the record is incomplete. the bill charges the appellee with an infringement of certain letters patent issued to and owned by the appellant. the answer attacks the validity of the patent, and denies the infringement. the court below, without page 154 u. s. 670 passing on.....
Judgment:
Price v. Kelly - 154 U.S. 669 (1881)
U.S. Supreme Court Price v. Kelly, 154 U.S. 669 (1881)

Price v. Kelly

No. 13

Submitted October 12, 1881

Decided October 25, 1881

154 U.S. 669

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Syllabus

Affirmed on the facts.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case is very imperfectly presented. No one appears for the appellee, and the record is incomplete.

The bill charges the appellee with an infringement of certain letters patent issued to and owned by the appellant. The answer attacks the validity of the patent, and denies the infringement. The court below, without

Page 154 U. S. 670

passing on the other questions, held there was no infringement. The appellee evidently claimed under a patent to himself, which, with the accompanying drawings and certain models, was in evidence. This evidence is not before us. Neither the patent nor the drawings are in the record, and the models have not been brought up. Nor have we been able to find anywhere in the record a satisfactory description of the structure which the appellee uses. The burden of proving the infringement is on the appellant. The necessary proof in this respect has not been made, and

the decree below is consequently

Affirmed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //