| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Elizabeth v. Pavement Company is a United States Supreme Court case from 1878. The case involved a dispute between Elizabeth, a widow, and the Pavement Company, a corporation. Elizabeth had been granted a patent for a certain type of pavement, and the Pavement Company had been using her invention without her permission. Elizabeth sued the Pavement Company for patent infringement. The Supreme Court held that Elizabeth was entitled to damages for the Pavement Company's unauthorized use of her invention. The Court reasoned that Elizabeth had a right to the exclusive use of her invention, and that the Pavement Company had violated her right by using it without her permission. The Court also held that Elizabeth was entitled to an injunction against the Pavement Company, preventing them from using her invention in the future. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that Elizabeth was entitled to damages and an injunction against the Pavement Company for patent infringement. The Court's decision established that inventors have a right to the exclusive use of their inventions, and that any unauthorized use of those inventions can be subject to legal action.
Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Elizabeth v. Pavement Company, arguing that the majority had misconstrued the meaning of a contract between two parties and failed to consider its full context. He argued that when read as a whole, it was clear that both parties intended for the defendant to pay an additional sum of money if they were found liable by a court or jury. The majority's interpretation would have allowed them to avoid this obligation without any consequence, which he believed could not be reconciled with their intentions at the time of signing. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if there was some ambiguity in interpreting what each party meant by certain terms used in their agreement, such ambiguities should be resolved against those who drafted it - namely here, the defendant pavement company - rather than being interpreted liberally in favor of one side over another.