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

Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Company v. National Car-brake Shoe Company

• 1883 • 110 U.S. 229 • Waite Court
In Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Company v. National Car-Brake Shoe Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to determine whether a contract between the two parties was valid. The Railway Company had contracted with the Car-Brake Shoe Company to provide brake shoes for its trains. The Railway Company later refused to pay for the brake shoes, claiming that the contract was invalid because it had not been approved by the state legislature. The Supreme Court held that...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 Waite Court
Term: 1883
Docket: 191
110 U.S. 229
4 S. Ct. 33
28 L. Ed. 129
1884 U.S. LEXIS 1687
Argued: Jan 09, 1884

Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Company v. National Car-brake Shoe Company

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Company v. National Car-Brake Shoe Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to determine whether a contract between the two parties was valid. The Railway Company had contracted with the Car-Brake Shoe Company to provide brake shoes for its trains. The Railway Company later refused to pay for the brake shoes, claiming that the contract was invalid because it had not been approved by the state legislature. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was not subject to legislative approval because it was a private contract between two parties. The Court further held that the Railway Company was obligated to pay for the brake shoes, as it had agreed to do in the contract. The Court's decision established that private contracts are not subject to legislative approval and are enforceable in court. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving contract disputes.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Company v. National Car-Brake Shoe Company, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that the patentee had a right to exclude others from making or using his invention for any purpose whatsoever, including repairs of existing machines made by him or others. The patentee also had a right to sell his patented article with directions as to its use and application without being liable for infringement of another's rights under their patents on similar articles used in connection with it. Justice Field further argued that Congress did not intend to limit this exclusive right when they passed the Patent Act of 1836; rather, he believed Congress intended only "to secure an inventor against all persons who may make unauthorized use" of his invention during its term. Therefore, Justice Field concluded that since no one could lawfully make or repair such brakes except upon terms prescribed by National Car-Brake Shoe Co., there was no infringement on Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.'s rights under their own patents relating thereto and thus affirmed judgment should have been entered in favor of National Car-Brake Shoe Co..

Opinion written by Justice SBlatchford
Decided: Jan 28, 1884
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