New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Decision of the Supreme Court

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


MCCORMICK vs. MANNY & Co.—In December, 1854, C. H. McCormick brought a suit in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, against John H. Manny and his partners, charging that they were building Reaping Machines that infringed his patent of 1845 for the divider and the reel post, and his patent of 1847 for the raker's-seat and reel. The case was elaborately argued before the Circuit Court in September, 1850, and in January, 1857. Judge McLean delivered the opinion of the Court, deciding that Manny & Co.'s machine did not infringe on McCormick's patents as charged, but, on the contrary, was an improvement invented and patented by John A. Manny, upon reaping machines which existed prior to McCormick's. From this decision McCormick appealed to the Supreme Court, and this final appellate tribunal rendered judgment on the 22d instant, affirming Judge McLean's decision and dismissing McCormick's bill with costs. The case was argued for Manny & Co. by E. M. Stanton and George Harding, and for McCormick by E. N. Dickerson. A synopsis of the decision will be given next week. At the opening of a new street in Parts lately, M. Dubose's electric light was employed with great success, perfectly illuminating the street, and shedding a beam of brilliant white , for a great distance.

Scientific American Magazine Vol 13 Issue 34This article was published with the title “Decision of the Supreme Court” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 13 No. 34 (), p. 268
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican05011858-268a

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe