Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1810-04-24
Oliver Evans,3


Oliver Evans,l
John Weiss.
This was an action on the case for
a violation of the plaintiffs patent
right, and came on upon the following
case agreedi
The plaintiff bsing the inventor of
the improvements in the manufacture
of -four, hereafter mentioned, and the
patent right for the same by him here
tofore obtained having been declared
by the court void in the action of tho
saiG Evans against Chambersj and the
time for which the said patent was
granted having also run out, an act of
Congress, entitled an act for the relief
Of Oliver Evans was passed on the 81 st
January, 18O8-in consequence of
which, the said Oliver duly obtained
letters patent, bearing date the 22d
January, 1908; notice whereof was
given to the defendant In Esbfhary
last. lmI
On the 9TH May, 1902 dEnk the
continuance of the former ass6t, the
defendant purchased of the plaintiff
right ia use the said Improvement at
his mill, On Wissahiccon creek, in Phi
ladeiPhia country, in this district, for
one wheel and pair of stones; but
prior to the passing said act. of Con-
gress, he applied < used, and continues
to apply and use the same improve
ments, for two wheels and two pair of
stones IL the same mill.-Ths questi.
on submitted, is whether the defen.
dant is liable for damages, for the use
OF said improvements, in application
to this second wheel and pair of stones,
since the act Of the 22d January, and
whether if SO he is liable before notice
from the plaintiff. IF the opinions of
fof the court be in favor of the plaintiff,
judgment to be entered generally, and
amount to be adjusted afterwards by
stfornies.
Judge Washington delivered the cpl
Mon of the Court.
1t is commended by the plaintiff.
that the defendant is liable for using
the plaintiffs Improvement, in appli,
ca,icn to the secont.yheel and pair of
stonAs, since the 22d January, 1908, or
at all events, since the time when the
defendant received notice of the plain
tlfi's patent; because the proviso in
the act passed on the 21st OF January,
1903, for the relief of Oliver Evans,
extends only to cases ofimproyements
erected for use, or used prior to the
passage OF said law, and does not pro.
tect the defendant from damages, for
using after the issuing of the patent
undsrthls law, an improvement erect
ed prior thsrete.
On the other side il is insisted tina,
such construction would render this
an ex post fsc.o law, and consequent.
" Jepugnant TO the constitution. TO
avoId, which, il would be SO construed,
rs 20 connect with the use of the inn
lProvemt mt the erection of it, subse-
qu4ntto the grant of the patent.
"A though the court at the last tern,
and upon the first argument, felt
strongly inclined to give it the con
struetion commended for by the defen-
| dant; yet upon further reflection, we
are satisfied that we should do VIC
lenee to the words, which no rule 81
construction should warrant.
The words of that pfoviso are " tina,
no person who shall have used the said
Improvement, or have erected the sayns
for use, before the issuing of the
patent, shall DC liable to damage
therefor"
That is, shall be liable for having e
reeted, or FOR having used the improve
nent, at any time prior to the patent
But respect TO the use of it, after issu
ing OF the patent, no protection what
ever is Afforded against the claim 70
4 ri \ -