The Essentials of American Constitutional Law

by Francis Newton Thorpe

[81] Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Peters, 591 (1834).

[82] Vanini et al. v. Paine et al. 1 Harr. (Del.) 65, quoted in Patterson v. Kentucky, 97 U.S., 501 (1878).

[83] Id. See also Herdic v. Roessler, 109 New York, 127 (1888); Hill and Co. Lmtd. v. Hoover, 220 U.S., 329. “Where a suit is brought on a contract of which a patent is the subject matter, either to enforce such contract, or to annul it, the case arises on the contract and not under the patent laws.” Hartell v. Tilghman, 99 U.S., 558. See also Dale Tile Mfg. Co. v. Hyatt, 125 U.S., 46 (1888).

[84] Rex v. Dawson, 5 State Trials.

[85] U. S. v. Smith, 5 Wheaton, 153 (1820).

[86] Art. iii., 2: 1.

[87] U. S. v. Rodgers, 150 U. S., 249 (1893).

[88] Art. i., 8: 11; The Prize Cases, 2 Black, 635 (1862).

[89] Brown v. U. S., 8 Cranch, 110; American Insurance Co. v. Canter, 1 Peters, 511; Lamar ex. v. Browne et al., 92 U. S., 187; Mormon Church v. U. S., 136 U. S., 1.

[90] Hepburn v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch, 445 (1804).