Summary

Portrait of Noah Haynes Swayne Noah Haynes Swayne Railroad Company v. Trimble — Opinion of the Court

There is no substantial ground of distinction. The application of the same principle to the assignment of an extended patent, made before the extension, is an inevitable corollary from the reasoning and ruling of the court. Without, in effect, overruling that adjudication, we cannot hold that Trimble had not a legal title under the extended as well as under the original patent.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Noah Haynes Swayne Noah Haynes Swayne Railroad Company v. Trimble — Opinion of the Court

If the facts were as alleged by Trimble, his contract with Stone was stillborn. It never had any vitality. Neither the legal representative of Stone nor any one in privity with him asserts its validity in this litigation. It is vicariously put forward by the plaintiffs in error. They seek to give it life and vigor, and invoke its aid for their protection.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature