Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

American Propeller & Manufacturing Co. v. United States

• 1936 • 300 U.S. 475 • Hughes Court
In the 1936 case American Propeller & Manufacturing Co. v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over patent rights and royalties between the U.S government and American Propeller & Manufacturing Co., a private company. The company had been granted patents for certain types of airplane propellers which were then used by the government during World War I without obtaining licenses or paying royalties to American Propeller. The court held that under Section 3477 of Revised Statutes,...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Hughes Court
Term: 1936
Docket: 605
300 U.S. 475
57 S. Ct. 521
81 L. Ed. 751
1937 U.S. LEXIS 1129
Argued: Mar 12, 1937

American Propeller & Manufacturing Co. v. United States

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1936 case American Propeller & Manufacturing Co. v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over patent rights and royalties between the U.S government and American Propeller & Manufacturing Co., a private company. The company had been granted patents for certain types of airplane propellers which were then used by the government during World War I without obtaining licenses or paying royalties to American Propeller. The court held that under Section 3477 of Revised Statutes, any agreement made with an unauthorized agent was void unless ratified by Congress - in this case, no such ratification occurred so there was no valid contract for royalty payments from the Government to American Propeller. Furthermore, it stated that even if there had been a valid contract, it would have ended when war broke out as per international law principles regarding enemy property rights.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

The dissenting opinion in the case of American Propeller & Manufacturing Co. v. United States argued that the majority's decision to hold a private company liable for damages caused by an airplane crash was unjust and unsupported by existing law or precedent. The dissenters believed that the government, as owner and operator of the aircraft, should bear sole responsibility for any accidents or damage resulting from its operation. They contended that holding a manufacturer responsible for defects in equipment used by another party after sale would set a dangerous precedent, potentially exposing all manufacturers to unlimited liability for actions taken with their products post-sale over which they have no control. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies between this ruling and previous decisions made on similar cases involving maritime law where shipbuilders were not held accountable for accidents occurring after delivery of vessels to their owners.

Opinion written by Justice GSutherland
Decided: Mar 29, 1937
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms