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

Long Et Al. v. Converse Et Al.

• 1875 • 91 U.S. 105 • Waite Court
In Long et al. v. Converse et al., the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a patent for a machine used to make shoes was valid. The patent was issued to the plaintiff, Long, and the defendants, Converse, were accused of infringing on the patent. The Court held that the patent was valid and that the defendants had infringed upon it. The Court found that the machine was novel and that it was not obvious to those skilled in the art. The Court also found that the machine...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: 1875
Docket: 32
91 U.S. 105
23 L. Ed. 233
1875 U.S. LEXIS 1339
Argued: Nov 04, 1875

Long Et Al. v. Converse Et Al.

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In Long et al. v. Converse et al., the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a patent for a machine used to make shoes was valid. The patent was issued to the plaintiff, Long, and the defendants, Converse, were accused of infringing on the patent. The Court held that the patent was valid and that the defendants had infringed upon it. The Court found that the machine was novel and that it was not obvious to those skilled in the art. The Court also found that the machine was useful and that it was not anticipated by prior art. The Court also held that the defendants had infringed upon the patent by using the machine to make shoes. The Court found that the defendants had not only copied the machine, but had also used it to make shoes. The Court concluded that the defendants had infringed upon the patent and that the plaintiff was entitled to damages. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the patent for the machine used to make shoes was valid and that the defendants had infringed upon it. The Court found that the machine was novel, useful, and not anticipated by prior art. The Court also found that the defendants had infringed upon the patent by using the machine to make shoes and that the plaintiff was entitled to damages.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Long et al. v. Converse et al., arguing that the majority had misapplied existing law to reach an unjust result. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms, and that courts should not interfere with such contracts unless there is clear evidence of fraud or mistake on either side. In this case, he argued, there was no such evidence; instead, the majority had simply chosen to ignore certain provisions of the contract which were unfavorable to one party in order to favor another party's interests. Justice Field concluded by expressing his hope that future decisions would adhere more closely to established legal principles when interpreting contracts between private individuals and corporations.

Opinion written by Justice MRWaite
Decided: Nov 29, 1875
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