Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

Patents.- Invention, consisting of discovery of some previously unknown principle of science or property of matter, by which some new and useful result is obtained, may be patented, without including in claim any new arrangement of machinery, provided inventor describes method or process of applying invention to practical use, p. 393.

Patents for discovery that certain useful results will be produced in any art, machine or composition, by use of certain meang, are void, if described results cannot be obtained by described means. p. 396.

Patents. Invention requiring employment of dangerous means to accomplish described result is not useful within meaning of patent law, p. 397.

Patents. Two things are not the same under patent law, when one is in practice substantially better than the other, in a case where second improvement is not gained by use of same means or known equivalents, p. 418.

Patents.- Question whether difference in degree is sufficient to prove alleged infringement, is one of fact, p. 418.

Patents. Tilghman invention for manufacturing glycerine and acids from fat by action of highly heated water, under great pressure, held impractical, and patent not sustained, pp. 412, 418.

Cited without application in Tilghman v. Werle, 39 Fed. 682. Overruled in Tilghman v. Proctor, 102 U. S. 708, 709, 26 L. 280, 281, and Tilghman v. Proctor, 125 U. S. 138, 149, 31 L. 664, 668, 8 S. Ct. 895, 901, sustaining same patent as patent of a process; dissenting opinion in Westinghouse v. Boyden Brake Co., 170 U. S. 578, 42 L. 1151, 18 S. Ct. 726, citing overruling cases, arguendo.

19 Wall. 419-433, 22 L. 43, TELEGRAPH CO. v. EYSER.

Statutes. What is clearly implied in a statute is as effectual as what is expressed, p. 427.

Statutes. Remedial provisions in statutes should be liberally construed, p. 427.

Cited in Watson v. Mayberry, 15 Utah, 269, 49 Pac. 480, holding provisions for appeals should be liberally construed.

Appeal and error.— Under act of June 1, 1872, supersedeas bond may be filed, and writ of error served at any time within sixty days after rendition of judgment, p. 428.

Cited in Rutherford v. Pennsylvania Life Ins. Co., 1 McCrary, 123, 1 Fed. 459, and Brown v. Evans, 8 Sawy. 510, 18 Fed. 61, both holdIng writ operates as supersedeas if served within sixty days after denial of motion for new trial

Distinguished in Kitchen v. Randolph, 93 U. S. 89, 90, 92, 23 L. 811. 812, holding under section 1012, revised statutes, unless writ be served within sixty days, supersedeas cannot be allowed; First National Bank v. McAndrews, 7 Mont. 438, 17 Pac. 556, holding supersedeas not obtainable where appeal to Supreme Court was not taken within sixty days.

19 Wall. 433-468, 22 L. 116, KLEIN v. RUSSELL.

Trial. Direction of verdict for either party is proper only when evidence is not conflicting, p. 463.

Cited in United States v. Babcock, 3 Dill. 580, F. C. 14,486, refusing to direct verdict, disputed facts existing; Deavers v. Spencer, 70 Fed. 481, 25 U. S. App. 411, upholding power to instruct jury to find for defendant when plaintiff fails to make out case.

Appeal and error.- Points not taken in court below cannot be first raised on appeal, p. 463.

Cited in Newcomb v. Wood, 97 U. S. 583, 24 L. 1086, holding objection, that not all of referees signed award, cannot be first raised on appeal; Pullman's Car Co. v. Central Transp. Co., 139 U. S. 63. 35 L. 69, 11 S. Ct. 489, holding objection that contract was ultra vires, cannot be first raised on appeal; United States v. Bell Tel. Co., 167 U. S. 263, 42 L. 162, 17 S. Ct. 819, approving doctrine generally. Distinguished in Fourth Nat. Bank v. Francklyn, 120 U. S. 751, 30 L. 827, 7 S. Ct. 759, holding statute not referred to below, may be considered on appeal.

Patents. Prima facie presumption is that reissue is for same invention as original patent, p. 463.

Cited generally in Wilson v. Coon, 18 Blatchf. 340, 6 Fed. 620, and Russell v. Dodge, 93 U. S. 464, 23 L. 975, both overruling principal case on grounds of fact.

Patent relates back, where question of novelty is in issue, to date of invention, not to time of application, p. 464.

Cited, but application denied, in Andrews v. Hovey, 124 U. S. 711, 712, 31 L. 561, 8 S. Ct. 681, 682, holding patent void for lack of novelty.

Patents. In construing patents, courts should proceed in a liberal spirit, so as to sustain patent and construction claimed by patentee, if same can be done consistently with language of specifications, p. 466.

Cited and applied in Adams v. Joliet Mfg. Co., 1 Fed. Cas. 125, holding courts should not defeat patent for mere technical defect in description; Bradley v. Dull, 19 Fed. 915, applying rule to patent involved; Tondeur v. Stewart, 28 Fed. 564, and Tondeur v. Cham bers, 37 Fed. 337, both holding construction claimed by patentee to

ANN

be favored; Richardson v. Campbell, 72 Fed. 529, and Palmer Tire Co. v. Lozier, 84 Fed. 669, both holding specification sufficiently full, when expressed in terms intelligible to those skilled in the art; Burke v. Partridge, 58 N. H. 351, holding scope of patent ascer tainable from entire instrument.

Cited, but application denied, in Soehner v. Favorite Stove Co., 84 Fed. 185, 54 U. S. App. 401, where language of claim, in light of specification, failed to show practicable combination. Distinguished in Brown v. Stilwell, etc., Mfg. Co., 57 Fed. 740, 6 U. S. App. 427, holding inventor cannot show invention broader than terms of claim.

Patents.— Where original patent was for process of treating leather with hot fat liquor, reissue seeking to cover process by use of fat liquor, hot or cold, is void, p. 467.

Cited in Kennedy v. Solar Refining Co., 69 Fed. 718, holding reissue limited to method specified in original patent.

Patents. Specifications need not prescribe exact proportion of all ingredients, in order to make claim for composition valid, p. 468. Miscellaneous.- Becce Button Co. v. Globe Button Co., 61 Fed. 963, 21 U. S. App. 244, and Kearney v. State, 101 Ga. 808, 65 Am. St. Rep. 348, 29 S. E. 129, no application.

19 Wall. 468-485, 22 L. 164, THE MAYOR v. RAY.

Municipal corporations possess none of the peculiar characteristics and qualities of private trading corporations, except that of acting in a corporate capacity, p. 475.

Cited in Eufaula v. McNab, 67 Ala. 590, 42 Am. Rep. 119, holding ambiguity arising from terms of charter to be strictly construed against existence of doubted power; Vaughtman v. Town of Waterloo, 14 Ind. App. 651, 43 N. E. 477, holding town not liable on agreement to indemnify officer for loss, resulting from performance of duties; Kansas City v. Vineyard, 128 Mo. 81, 30 S. W. 327, as to nature of municipal corporations; Kansas City v. Smart, 128 Mo. 291, 30 S. W. 778, holding municipal corporation not an incorporated company within constitutional meaning; State v. County Commrs., 47 Neb. 453, 66 N. W. 438, holding canal commissioners not a municipal corporation; City of Corvallis v. Carlile, 10 Or. 140, 45 Am. Rep. 135, and Williams v. Davidson, 43 Tex. 34, both holding municipal powers to be strictly construed.

Municipal corporations.- Power to borrow money does not belong to a municipal corporation as an incident of its creation, p. 475. Cited and principle applied in Gause v. Clarksville, 5 Dill. 170, 180, 181, F. C. 5,276, holding municipality has no inherent power to borrow and issue securities; Green v. Dyersburg, 2 Flipp, 493.

494, F. C. 5,756, holding power to borrow not impliable from authorization to subscribe for railroad stocks; Simpson v. Lauderdale Co., 56 Ala. 68, holding county cannot borrow for erection of necessary bridges, unless specially empowered; Mayor v. Wetumpka Wharf Co., 63 Ala. 625, 626, denying power of city to borrow in absence of express grant of power; Allen v. Intendant, etc., 89 Ala. 645, 8 So. 32, 9 L. R. A. 498, denying inherent power of city to borrow money; Goodwin v. East Hartford, 70 Conn. 42, 38 Atl. 885, a similar case; Farr v. Grand Rapids, 112 Mich. 102, 70 N. W. 412, holding authority to construct lighting plant, does not imply power to borrow therefor; Wells v. Town of Salina, 119 N. Y. 295, 23 N. E. 874, 7 L. R. A. 764, and n., denying general power of towns to borrow for municipal purposes, collecting cases: Daniel v. Commissioners of Edgecombe Co., 74 N. C. 499, holding contract for loan for support of paupers, void; Dube v. Brown, 96 N. C. 130, 1 S. E. 875, holding restrictions on borrowing power of municipalities strictly construed; Wallace v. Richmond, 94 Va. 223, 26 S. E. 591, holding ordinance ordering destruction of liquor and pledging city for repayment of loss, void, collecting cases; Exchange Bank v. Lewis Co., 28 W. Va. 288, denying power of Virginia County Courts to borrow for erection of public buildings. See 30 Am. Dec. 191, 192, 193, and 98 Am. Dec. 665, notes on power of municipality to borrow; 51 Am. St. Rep. 828, monographic note on municipal bonds. Distinguished in Desmond v. Jefferson, 19 Fed. 486, holding authority to purchase property for city use implies power to issue bonds in payment thereof; Martin v. Tyler, 4 N. Dak. 289, 60 N. W. 396, 25 L. R. A. 843, holding power to issue bonds impliable from power to construct drains; Richmond, etc., Co. v. West Point, 94 Va. 675, 27 S. E. 461, holding city may bind itself by bond for purchase of necessary real estate.

Municipal corporations.- Creation by city charter of specific means of raising funds is exclusive of all other means, p. 475.

Cited and principle applied in Hill v. Memphis, 134 U. S. 204, 205, 33 L. 890, 10 S. Ct. 564, holding issuance of bonds not authorized by power conferred to subscribe for railway stock; Heidelberg v. St. Francois Co., 100 Mo. 75, 12 S. W. 915, holding county contract, not made as provided by statute, void.

Distinguished in Adams v. Mayor, 59 Ga. 770, charter conferring broader powers.

Municipal corporations.- Municipal authorities have no power, in absence of statute, to issue commercial paper, free from equitable defenses in the hands of bona fide holders, p. 477.

Wall v.

This holding is relied upon by the following citing cases:
County of Monroe, 103 U. S. 78, 26 L. 432, holding courty may set
up defenses available against original payee in suit on its warrants;
Claiborne Co. v. Brooks, 111 U. S. 407, 28 L. 473, 4 S. Ct. 492, hold

ANN

ing power conferred on county to erect buildings does not authorize issue of commercial paper; Merchants' Bank v. Bergen Co., 115 U. S. 391, 29 L. 432, 6 S. Ct. 91, holding bona fide holder of municipal bond lacking recitals, chargeable with notice of illegality of issuance; Norton v. Dyersburg, 127 U. S. 175, 32 L. 90, 8 S. Ct. 1118, holding grant of power to subscribe for railroad stock does not authorize issuance of negotiable bonds; District of Columbia v. Cornell, 130 U. S. 661, 32 L. 1043, 9 S. Ct. 695, holding wrongfully issued negotiable certificates invalid in hands of bona fide holder; Merrill v. Monticello, 138 U. S. 689, 690, 692, 34 L. 1076, 1077, 11 S. Ct. 447, 448, denying implied power of city to issue negotiable paper; Hopper v. Covington, 10 Biss. 490, 8 Fed. 779, holding bonds without recitals impeachable in hands of bona fide holders; Hitchcock v. Galveston, 2 Woods, 283, 285, F. C. 6,532, denying inherent power of city to issue negotiable bonds to circulate as commercial paper; Chisholm v. Montgomery, 2 Woods, 593, 594, F. C. 2,686, holding such power not impliable from ordinary police powers; Lewis v. Shreveport, 3 Woods, 211, F. C. 8,331, holding express grant of power necessary to authorize city to issue bonds not authorized by charter; Shirk v. Pulaski Co., 4 Dill. 213, F. C. 12,794, holding warrants issued by Arkansas counties subject to equities in hands of bona fide holder; Kinsey v. Little River Co., 14 Fed. Cas. 641, holding county warrants subject to defense of ultra vires in hands of innocent holder; Stanton v. Shipley, 27 Fed. 500, holding paper negotiable in form, issued by school trustee, at most a simple obligation; Dodge v. Memphis, 51 Fed. 167, holding negotiable paper Issued by municipality without authority, void; Goodwin v. East Hartford, 70 Conn. 42, 38 Atl. 885, a similar case; People v. Johnson, 100 Ill. 548, 39 Am. Rep. 68, holding county order an evidence of indebtedness always open to defenses proper against original holder; State v. Hawes, 112 Ind. 327, 14 N. E. 89, holding certificate of indebtedness, fraudulently issued by township trustee, void in hands of innocent holder; Newgass v. New Orleans, 42 La. Ann. 167, 21 Am. St. Rep. 371, 7 So. 566, holding city certificates of indebtedness not negotiable instruments; State v. Cook, 43 Neb. 322, 61 N. W. 694, holding municipal warrants not negotiable instruments; Town of Hackettstown v. Swackhamer, 37 N. J. L. 198, holding promissory note given by municipality subject to equities in hands of innocent holder; Knapp v. Mayor, 39 N. J. L. 398. holdIng municipality lacks power to invest its obligations with character of commercial paper; Goose River Bank v. Willow Lake Township. 1 N. Dak. 27. 26 Am. St. Rep. 606, 44 N. W. 1002, holding school township warrants always subject to defenses against payee; Robertson v. Breedlove, 61 Tex. 322. holding counties may not issue bonds unless power is expressly conferred. See note in 3 Dill. 391,

F. C. 13.870, on municipal bonds.

Distinguished in Hitchcock v. Galveston. 96 U. S. 350. 24 L. 661. holding contract for street work not wholly inoperative because

« ForrigeFortsett »