History
  • No items yet
midpage
Evans v. Chambers
2 Wash. C. C. 125
U.S. Circuit Court for the Dis...
1807
Check Treatment
BY THE COURT.

The second ground for a nonsuit is not to be gotten over. If the allegations and suggestions of the petition are substantially recited, it will be sufficient But in this case they are not All the recitals in the patent refer to the elevators, and other parts of the mill machinery, except, that the use of the hopperboy is incidentally mentioned; without any description of its use, and the manner in which it is to work. But the petition gives a minute and full description of it, which’substantially ought to have been recited; particularly in this case, where the patent does not in any manner refer to the petition which has been read. Not that we mean to say that such a reference was necessary, if the suggestion of the petition had been substantially recited. Non-suit awarded.

Case Details

Case Name: Evans v. Chambers
Court Name: U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania
Date Published: Oct 15, 1807
Citation: 2 Wash. C. C. 125
Docket Number: Case No. 4,555
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.