Boundaries and conditions of the cession.mitted to us by the said act, and in the name, and for and on behalf of the said state, do, by these presents, convey, assign, transfer, and set over unto the United States of America, for the benefit of the said states, North Carolina inclusive, all right, title, and claim which the said state hath to the sovereignty and territory of the lands situated within the chartered limits of the said state, as bounded and described in the above recited act of the General Assembly, to and for the uses and purposes, and on the conditions mentioned in the said act.
In witness whereof, we have hereunto subscribed our names, and affixed our seals, in the senate-chamber, at New York, this twenty-fifth day of February, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, and in the fourteenth year of the independence of the United States of America.
Sam. Johnston.(l.s.)
Benjamin Hawkins.(l.s.)
Signed, sealed, and delivered
in the presence of
Sam. A. Otis.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,Accepted. That the said deed be, and the same is hereby accepted.
Approved, April 2, 1790.
Statute ⅠⅠ.April 2, 1790.
Chap. VII.—An Act to promote the progress of useful Arts.[1]
Repealed by the act of 21st Feb. 1793, ch. 11.Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That upon the petition of any person or persons to the Secretary of State, the Secretary
- ↑ The acts passed by Congress, subsequent to this statute, relating to patents for useful inventions, have been:
1. An “act to promote the progress of useful arts; and to repeal the act heretofore made for this purpose,” passed February 21, 1793. Repealed by act of July 4, 1836.
2. An act supplementary to the act entitled an “act to promote the progress of useful arts,” passed June 7, 1794. Repealed by act of July 4, 1836.
3. An act to extend the privilege of obtaining patents for useful discoveries and inventions to certain persons therein mentioned, and to enlarge and define the penalties for violating the rights of patentees, passed April 17, 1800. Repealed by act of July 4, 1836.
4. An act concerning patents for useful inventions, passed July 3, 1832. Repealed by act of July 4, 1836.
5. An act concerning the issuing of patents to aliens for useful discoveries and inventions, passed July 13, 1832. Repealed by act of July 4, 1836.
6. An act to promote the progress of useful arts, and to repeal all acts heretofore made for that purpose, passed July 4, 1836.
7. An act authorizing the commissioner of the patent office to issue patents to Angier Marsh Perkins, and John Howard Ryan, passed March 31, 1838.
8. An act in addition to an act to promote the progress of the useful arts, passed March 3, 1839, chap. 87. Altered by act of August 29, 1842, chap. 262.
9. An act in addition to an act to promote the progress of the useful arts, and to repeal all acts heretofore made for that purpose, passed August 29, 1842, chap. 262.
The following cases have been decided in the courts of the United States, upon the laws granting patents for new and useful inventions:—
1. On the form and subjects of patents,—Invention and Discovery,—the Specification and Description.—Evans v. Eaton, 3 Wheat. 454; 4 Cond. Rep. 291. Pennock v. Dialogue, 2 Peters, 16. Grant et al. v. Raymond, 6 Peters, 218. Shaw v. Cooper, 7 Peters, 292. Prouty v. Ruggles, 16 Peters, 336. Whittemore v. Cutter, 1 Gallis. C. C. R. 429, 478. Odiorne v. Winkley, 2 Gallis. C. C. R. 51. Stearns v. Barret, 1 Mason’s C. C. R. 153. Lowell v. Lewis, 1 Mason’s C. C. R. 182. Bedford v. Hunt, 1 Mason’s C. C. R. 302. Kneass v. The Schuylkill Bank, 4 Wash. C. C. R. 9. Barrett et al. v. Hall et al., 1 Mason’s C. C. R. 447. Odiorne v. The Amesbury Nail Factory, 2 Mason’s C. C. R. 28. Moody v. Fisk et al., 2 Mason’s C. C. R. 112. Langdon v. De Groot, Paine’s C. C. R. 203. Goodyear v. Matthews, Paine’s C. C. R. 300. Morris v. Huntingdon, Paine’s C. C. R. 348. Sullivan v. Redfield et al., Paine’s C. C. R. 441. Rutgen v. Kanowers, 1 Wash. C. C. R. 168. Evans v. Chambers, 2 Wash. C. C. R. 125. Evans v. Eaton, 3 Wash. C. C. R. 443; Peters’ C. C. R. 322. Dixon v. Moyer, 4 Wash. C. C. R. 68. Gray et al. v. James et al., Peters’ C. C. R. 394. Mellus v. Silsbee, 4 Mason’s C. C. R. 108. Ames v. Howard, 1 Sumner’s C. C. R. 482. Delano v. Scott, Gilpin’s D. C. R. 489. Wood v. Williams, ibid. 517. Evans v. Jordan et al., 1 Brockenb. C. C. R. 248. Davis v. Palmer, 2 Brockenb. C. C. R. 298. Ryan v. Goodwin, 3 Sumner’s C. C. R. 514. Blanchard v. Sprague, 3 Sumner’s C. C. R. 279. Alden v. Dewey, 1 Story’s C. C. R. 336. Prouty v. Draper, ibid. 568. Reed v. Cutter, ibid. 590. Stone v. Sprague, ibid. 270.
Infringement of Patent Rights.—Evans v. Jordon et al., 9 Cranch, 199; 3 Cond. Rep. 358. Keplenger v. De Young, 10 Wheat. 358; 6 Cond. Rep. 135. Shaw v. Cooper, 7 Peters, 292. Whittemore v. Cutter,
