In the case of Cawood Patent; Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Turrill, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether the patent of a certain invention was valid. The invention in question was a machine for cutting and shaping railroad ties. The patent was issued to one William Cawood in 1867. The Supreme Court held that the patent was valid and that the invention was novel and useful. The Court noted that the invention was not obvious to those skilled in the art and that it was not anticipated by prior art. The Court also noted that the invention was not in public use or on sale prior to the patent being issued. The Court further held that the patent was infringed by the Illinois Central Railroad Company, which had been using the invention without permission. The Court ordered the Railroad Company to pay damages to Cawood for the infringement. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the patent of Cawood's invention was valid and that the Illinois Central Railroad Company had infringed upon it. The Court ordered the Railroad Company to pay damages to Cawood for the infringement.

In the case of Cawood Patent; Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Turrill, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a patent issued by Congress in 1851 for an invention related to railroad construction was valid or not. The majority opinion held that it was invalid because it did not meet certain requirements set forth by Congress at the time of its issuance. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that since there had been no change in law since 1851 when the patent was issued, then it should be considered valid and enforceable under existing laws. He further noted that if Congress intended to invalidate such patents after they were granted, then they should have done so explicitly rather than relying on vague language which could lead to confusion as to what is required for a valid patent. Therefore he concluded that while some technicalities may have been overlooked during its issuance process, this does not necessarily mean that the patent itself is invalid and unenforceable.