TEESE V. HUNTINGDON, 64 U. S. 2 (1859)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 64 U. S. 2

U.S. Supreme Court

Teese v. Huntingdon, 64 U.S. 23 How. 2 2 (1859)

Teese v. Huntingdon

64 U.S. (23 How.) 2


Counsel fees are not a proper element for the consideration of the jury in the estimation of damages in actions for the infringement of a patent right.

This point has been directly ruled by this Court, and is no longer an open question. By the fifteenth section of the Patent Act of the fourth of July, 1836, the defendant is permitted to plead the general issue and give any special matter in evidence, provided notice in writing may have been given to the plaintiff or his attorney thirty days before the trial.

It is not necessary that this should be served and filed by an order of the court, and it is sufficient if it was served and filed subsequently to the time when the depositions were taken and filed in court.

For the purpose of impeaching a witness, a question was asked of another witness "What is the reputation of the first witness for moral character?" This question was objected to, and properly not allowed to be put by the court below.

The elementary writers and cases upon this point examined.

Another witness was asked what was the reputation of the first witness for truth and veracity, who replied that he had no means of knowing, not having had any transactions with him for five years. This question was excluded by the court, which must judge according to its discretion whether or not it applies to a time too remote.

Page 64 U. S. 3

The history of the trial in the court below is fully set forth in the opinion of this Court.

Page 64 U. S. 6

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line :