Summary

John McLean Stimpson v. West Chester Railroad Company…

If a patentee's first patent be inoperative for want of a full and exact description, and he stands by for a long and unreasonable period of time, without surrendering and remedying the defect by furnishing such a description, and obtaining a regrant, and in the mean time permits others to use what he subsequently claims to be his invention, with a knowledge of such use without objection or asserting his right, this is evidence from which a jury may infer his acquiescence and abandonment to the public as a matter of fact.
Source: Wikisource

John McLean Stimpson v. West Chester Railroad Company…

The reason why there must be an inquiry into both the inadvertence and fraud arises from the settled construction of the act of 1793, that where the defect is not owing to fraud, the defendant is entitled to a verdict and judgment in his favor, but not to a judgment that the patent is void for the defect, unless he shows that the defect was owing to fraud.
Source: Wikisource

John McLean Stimpson v. West Chester Railroad Company…

The defects in the old patent must be in the specification, when it does not comply with the requisites of the third section of the act of 1793, calling for a correct description of the thing patented (6 Peters, 247) ; a new one may be issued on compliance with those requisites, which are there prescribed. But the new patent must be confined to the thing patented by the old one,-the thing invented or discovered,-'the same invention'; it cannot embrace another substantive and essential matter, which was not before patented; the thing, the invention, must be the same in both patents
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature