Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

Distinguished in Peake v. New Orleans, 139 U. S. 354, 35 L. 135, 11 S. Ct. 515, where city did not guarantee payment of drainage

assessments.

Municipal corporations. In suit against city, on contract for street paving, to be assessed against adjoining owners, but payment of assessment being guaranteed by the city, it is no defense where the assessments have not been paid, that this method of payment was illegal, p. 311.

Cited and relied on in District of Columbia v. Lyon, 161 U. S. 207, 40 L. 672, 16 S. Ct. 452, holding District liable on contracts for paving streets, the mode agreed upon for the payment of which having failed through the negligence of the officers of the District; Barber Co. v. Denver, 72 Fed. 339, 36 U. S. App. 499, and Denny v. Spokane, 79 Fed. 723, 48 U. S. App. 282, are similar cases, and hold likewise; arguendo, in Lea v. Memphis, 9 Baxt. 106, a suit growing out of same cause of action.

Damages. When damages are of such a character as to be incapable of legal computation, held, that they should not be allowed, p. 318.

Contracts. Where duty of collection of an account is imposed on a party by express terms of contract, he cannot recover from other party for services for its collection, p. 320.

Municipal corporations.-After city has entered into a special contract, in mode provided by law, its officers have no power to modify same, p. 321.

Reference. Where no exception was taken to reference of ac count to a master, nor before the master, both parties presenting all the evidence desired, objection that the master virtually decided the case instead of the court, is not well grounded, p. 322.

Reaffirmed in Gay Mfg. Co. v. Camp, 65 Fed. 797, 25 U. S. App. 134, holding findings of master, when sustained by Circuit Court, should not be overruled in appellate court, unless they are without testimony to support them.

20 Wall. 323-341, 22 L. 348, STOCKDALE v. INSURANCE CO. Internal revenue.- Act of June 30, 1864, imposing a tax on earnings of railroad companies, intended to tax earnings, whether divided or undivided, p. 330.

Constitutional law.- Legislature may, by statute, declare the construction of previous statutes, so as to bind courts in reference to subsequent transactions; also to past transactions, so long as no constitutional right is violated, p. 331.

Cited and applied in Cope v. Cope, 137 U. S. 688, 34 L. 834, 11 S. Ct. 224, in interpreting the several acts of Congress relating to

polygamy; Schuylkill Nav. Co. v. Elliott, 21 Fed. Cas. 763, holding Congress has the right to impose a tax by a new statute, although the measure of the tax is governed by the income of the past year. Approved, arguendo, in United States v. State Bank, 27 Fed. Cas. 1299, and Singer Mfg. Co. v. M'Collock, 24 Fed. 669, 670. Cited in Koshkonong v. Burton, 104 U. S. 679, 26 L. 890, applying latter part of rule. Approved in Burr v. United States, 66 Fed. 743, in construing tariff act of 1894.

Internal revenue. One hundred and nineteenth section of internal revenue act of 1864, which directed that income tax should cease to be collected in 1870, did not apply to taxes imposed on earnings of railroad companies, p. 333.

Cited and reaffirmed in Railroad Co. v. Rose, 95 U. S. 79, 80, 24 L. 377, and Railroad Co. v. United States, 101 U. S. 549, 25 L. 1070, both holding revenue officer rightfully assessed railroad company on interest paid bondholders prior to August 1, 1870; Oulton v. California Ins. Co., 154 U. S. 615, 22 L. 780, 14 S. Ct. 1208, holding section 119, above, did not apply to taxes imposed on earnings of insurance companies; German Bank v. Archbold, 15 Blatchf. 402, F. C. 5,364, holding tax imposed under section 122 of revenue act of 1864, is tax on the corporation; Concord Ry. Co. v. Topliff, 6 Fed. Cas. 263, holding tax imposed on profits of railroad and other corporations, under act of 1864, and subsequent acts, is entirely distinct from the income tax proper.

Internal revenue.- Tax imposed by section 122 of the revenue act of 1864, on interest payable on bonds, and dividends declared on stock of railroad corporations, is a tax on the incomes pro tanto, of holders of such bonds or stock, p. 334.

Reaffirmed in concurring opinion in United States v. Erie Ry. Co., 106 U. S. 703, 27 L. 153, 1 S. Ct. 226, which reverses S. C., 9 Ben. 71, 72, 74, F. C. 15,056, and holding railroad company liable for taxes on interest paid alien holders of bonds; Erskine v. Railroad Co., 94 U. S. 620, 24 L. 133.

Miscellaneous.- Cited incidentally in Bailey v. Railroad Co., 22 Wall. 632, 22 L. 847.

20 Wall. 342-353, 22 L. 303, WASHING MACHINE CO. v. TOOL CO.

Patents. Letters-patent granted Sylvanus Walker for a clotheswringer, construed, p. 349.

Cited incidentally in Campbell, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Duplex, etc., Co., 86 Fed. 322.

Patents. Use of mechanism having some of features of patented device, does not constitute an infringement of patented device, D. 352.

20 Wall. 353-375, 22 L. 241, HAILES v. VAN WORMER.

Patents. A new combination, if it produces new and useful results, is patentable, though all the constituents of the combination were well known and in common use before combination was made, p. 868.

Cited and principle applied in Herring v. Nelson, 14 Blatchf. 299, F. O. 6,424, where a combination of machinery for cooling meal was held patentable; Williams v. Rome, etc., Ry. Co., 15 Blatchf 210, 211, F. C. 17,735, holding an improvement in locomotive lamps to be a patentable combination; Booth v. Parks, 1 Flipp. 383, F. C. 1,648, reaffirms the rule; Kerosene Heater Co. v. Littell, 14 Fed. Cas. 377, where letters-patent for lamp chimneys were sustained under this rule; Fitch v. Bragg, 8 Fed. 590, holding a particular snap-hook to be an invention; Detroit Mfg. Co. v. Renchard, 9 Fed. 298, where an improved lubricator was held to be a patentable novelty; Wood v. Packer, 17 Fed. 651, where patent for improved coal-cart with patent extension chute was held valid; Niles Tool Works v. Betts Co., 27 Fed. 305, holding patent for improvement in turning and boring mills, valid; Steiner Co. v. Holloway, 43 Fed. 307, where an improvement in chemical fire-extinguishers was held to be a patentable combination; Pacific Cable Ry. Co. V. Butte, etc., Ry. Co.. 52 Fed. 866, applying rule to patent for improved car-brake; Bowers v. Von Schmidt, 80 Fed. 150, 48 U. S. App. 188, affirming S. C., 63 Fed. 582, holding a combination for dredging rivers a patentable invention; Thomson Meter Co. v. National Co., 65 Fed. 430, 28 U. S. App. 275, holding certain improvement in water-meters patentable; Am. Advertising Co. v. Newton St. Ry. Co., 82 Fed. 734, where an advertising rack to be used in cars was held an invention. Approved, arguendo, in Stilwell, etc., Co. v. Cincinnati Co., 23 Fed. Cas. 97, and Beach v. Hobbs, 82 Fed. 923, without special application.

Patents. Merely bringing old devices into juxtaposition, and there allowing each to work out its own effect without production of something novel, is not invention, p. 368.

This rule has been cited and relied on in the following cases where patents for combinations have been held void for want of invention: Reckendorfer v. Faber, 92 U. S. 356, 23 L. 723, to patent for attaching piece of rubber to end of lead pencil and thereby making an eraser; Pickering v. McCullough, 104 U. S. 317, 26 L. 751, to patent for improvement in making crucibles; Phillips v. Detroit, 111 U. S. 607, 28 L. 533, 4 S. Ct. 582, to patent for street pavement; Morris v. McMillan, 112 U. S. 249, 28 L. 704, 5 S. Ct. 221, to patent for improvement for applying steam power to capstans of steamboats and other crafts; Beecher Mfg. Co. v. Atwater Co., 114 U. 8. 524, 29 L. 232, 5 S. Ct. 1008, to patent for use of dies in succession; Thatcher Co. v. Burtis, 121 U. S. 295, 30 L. 945, 7 S. Ct. 1039, apply

ing rule to patent for improvement in fire-place heaters; Hendy v. Golden State, etc., Iron Works, 127 U. S. 375, 32 L. 209, 8 S. Ct. 1278, to patent for improvement in ore stamp-feeders; Mosler Safe Co. v. Mosler, 127 U. S. 361, 32 L. 184, 8 S. Ct. 1151, affirming S. C., 22 Fed. 905, to patent for improvement in safes; Florsheim v. Schilling, 137 U. S. 77, 34 L. 579, 11 S. Ct. 25, to patent for improvement in corsets; Union Edge-Setter Co. v. Keith, 139 U. S. 539, 35 L. 264, 11 S. Ct. 624, to patent for improvement in sole edgeburnishing machines; Adams v. Bellaire Co., 141 U. S. 542, 35 L. 851, 12 S. Ct. 67, to patent for improvement in lanterns; Knapp v. Morss, 150 U. S. 227, 37 L. 1062, 14 S. Ct. 83, reaffirms the rule, and applies it to a patent for dress-forms; Palmer v. Corning, 156 U. S. 345, 39 L. 447, 15 S. Ct. 382, to patent for improvement in sewer-gratings; Specialty Mfg. Co. v. Fenton, etc., Co., 174 U. S. 498, 19 S. Ct. 643, to patent for improvement in storage cases for books; Webster, etc., Co. v. Higgins, 15 Blatchf. 456, F. C. 17,342, to patent for improvement in looms; Alcott v. Young, 16 Blatchf. 138, F. C. 149, where patent for improved kindling-wood was held void for want of invention; Slawson v. Grand Street Ry. Co., 17 Blatchf. 515, 4 Fed. 534, applying rule to patent for improvement in lighting fare-boxes on street cars; Beatty v. Hodges, 19 Blatchf. 382, 8 Fed. 611, to patent for improvement in hats; Perry v. Foundry Co., 20 Blatchf. 501. 12 Fed. 437, to patent for improvement in stoves; Clark Co. v. Ferguson, 21 Blatchf. 378, 17 Fed. 80, to patent for improvement in cheese-formers for cider presses; Doubleday v. Ross, 11 Fed. 739, to patent for improvement in tubular apparatus for deep wells; Peard v. Johnson, 23 Fed. 510, to patent for improved school-desk; Leonard v. Lovell, 29 Fed. 314, where patent for improvement in refrigerators was held void for want of novelty; National, etc., Roofing Co. v. Garwood, 35 Fed. 660, to patent for improvement in sheet-metal shingles; Schlicht & Co. v. Sherwood Co., 36 Fed. 589, to patent for improved letter-file; Jones v. Clow, 39 Fed. 787, to patent for improvement in heating apparatus; Foos Mfg. Co. v. Springfield, etc., Co., 49 Fed. 642, 6 U. S. App. 14, affirming S. C., 44 Fed. 598, to patent for crushing and grindingmill; Campbell v. Bailey, 45 Fed. 565, to patent for improvement in catch-basin covers; Johnson Co. v. Pacific Rolling-Mills Co., 47 Fed. 591, to patent for improved form of rails for street railroads; Standard Oil Co. v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 54 Fed. 526, 7 U. S. App. 636, affirming S. C., 48 Fed. 110, where patent for combination oilcar was held void under rule; J. L. Mott Iron Works v. Standard Mfg. Co., 53 Fed. 823, 3 U. S. App. 386, to patent for improvement in waste-valves and overflows for baths and basins; Newark, etc., Material Co. v. Wilmot, etc., Co., 60 Fed. 618, to patent for a protector of watches against magnetism; Osgood Co. v. Metropolitan Co., 75 Fed. 672, 33 U. S. App. 581, to patent for dredging machine; Schwarzwalder & Co. v. Detroit, 77 Fed. 892, to patent for foldingchair; Clisby v. Reese, 88 Fed. 648, 59 U. S. App. 733, to patent for

Improvement in broom-corn cleaners. Cited in Antisdel v. Chicago Hotel Co., 89 Fed. 312, 60 U. S. App. 587, holding doctrine of aggregation applies to an article of manufacture as well as a machine. Cited, arguendo, as authority for holding that a combination to be patentable must produce a new force, effect or result; Reckendorfer v. Faber, 92 U. S. 353, 23 L. 722, Stephenson v. Brooklyn Ry. Co., 114 U. S. 158, 29 L. 61, 5 S. Ct. 781, and Cantrell v. Wallick, 117 U. S. 694. 29 L. 1018, 6 S. Ct. 973. Approved, arguendo, in Holmes v. Hurst, 174 U. S. 89, 19 S. Ct. 609, holding the serial publication of a book in a magazine, before obtaining copyright, is such a publication as will vitiate a copyright of the whole book subsequently obtained; Perfection Cleaner Co. v. Bosley, 9 Biss. 388, 2 Fed. 577, where a device for cleaning windows was held to embody nothing but mechanical skill, and is not patentable; Tower v. Bemis, etc., Co., 19 Fed. 500, Brinkerhoff v. Aloe, 37 Fed. 96, Worswick Co. v. City of Kansas, 38 Fed. 248, Sperry Mfg. Co. V. Owens, 96 Fed. 977, Kane v. Huggins Co., 44 Fed. 292, and Muller v. Lodge Co., 77 Fed. 628, 47 U. S. App. 189. Cited in Bullinger v. Mackey, 15 Blatchf. 561, F. C. 2,127, Sheriff v. Fulton, 12 Fed. 140, Nat. Bunching-Mach. Co. v. Williams Co., 44 Fed. 192, 12 L. R. A. 109, and n., and St. Paul Plow Works v. Deere & Co., 54 Fed. 502, but without special application.

Patents. Claims under patents are restricted to precise form and arrangements described in specifications, p. 372.

Reaffirmed in Buffington Bldg. Co. v. Eustis, 65 Fed. 810, 27 U. S. App. 693, Murphy Mfg. Co. v. Excelsior Co., 76 Fed. 975, 40 U. S. App. 200, and Adams Elec. Ry. Co. v. Lindell Ry. Co., 77 Fed. 451, 40 U. 8. App. 482, holding absence in an alleged infringing device or construction of a single essential element of a patented combination is fatal to claim of infringement.

20 Wall. 375-384, 22 L. 383, FERRIS v. HIGLEY.

Territories.-Act establishing and organizing a territory stands as fundamental law or Constitution thereof, p. 380.

Cited and applied in Payne v. Davis, 2 Mont. 382, in holding a statute relating to appeals, which is inconsistent with the organic act, void; Wenner v. Smith, 4 Utah, 244, 9 Pac. 297, holding laws enacted by Congress for government of territories must be supreme, any law of territory to contrary notwithstanding; arguendo, in Territory v. Scott, 3 Dak. 398, 401, 20 N. W. 406, 408, in discussing power of territorial legislature; Browning v. Browning, 3 N. Mex. 466 (668), 9 Pac. 680, and holding territorial legislature cannot enact laws in conflict therewith.

Territories.-Common-law and chancery jurisdiction conferred on territorial courts of Utah by its organic act, include almost every matter which can be litigated in a court of justice, p. 381. VOL. VIII-21

« ForrigeFortsett »