« ForrigeFortsett »
06. LiFeodorantedeart the laws of a State in f&$4
can take advantage of the non- 32. But where the claimant presented before the performance of a condition subsequent annexed to Board, besides the original title, evidences of dean estate in fee, but the grantor or his heirs or rivative title, and the commissioners decided upon successors, and if they do not assert their right to both, the confirmation operates as a grant to the enforce a forfeiture on that ground, the title re- claimant,' although his name was omitted in the mains unimpaired in the grantee. The rule equally form of confirmation, obtains where the grant upon condition proceeds
837 from the government. Idem,
MARITIME LAW, 3, 5, 10.
STATE LAWS AND DECISIONS, 9. 21. The Act of Congress of May 15, 1856, grant:
TAXES AND TAX SALES, 12. ing lands to Iowa for railroad purposes authorized
USURY, 4. a sale of 120 sections in advance of the construc
1. Maritime liens upon the property sold by the tion of any part of tne road to be constructed and the purchasers thereof took a good title, although
order of the admiralty court follow the proceeds,
but the court cannot decree that third persons who no part of the road was constructed when their sale was made. The conditions, as to completion
could not have proceeded against the property in of the road imposed by the State were conditions
rem, may recover a proportion of the proceeds to
satisfy their claims. subsequent.
Wilson 2. Bell,
259 Railroad Co. V. Courtright,
2. No lien on, or right of preference in, such 22. There was no restriction upon the State as to the place where the 120 sections should be se
proceeds can be acquired by virtue of the proceedlected, except that they should be within twenty ings under the state garnishee process, or by execu
tion or attachment. miles of the road.
3. A ship is not discharged from a bottomry lien, 22. The acceptance by the United States of the
unless the bord is actually paid. What is not paydeed of Virginia ceding the Northwest Territory,
ment. imposed upon the United States the duty of per
Belle of the Sea v. Johnson,
362 forming the condition and giving the_protection
4. A person having a lien upon property does not to the persons and property of the French and
lose it by taking a bill of sale of the same property, Canadian inhabitants, stipulated in such deed.
the bill of sale being voidable, and there being no Langdeau v. Hanes,
evidence of intent to abandon the lien. 24. A confirmation by Congress of the decision
A very v. Hackley,
385 of the commissioners appointed to decide such
5. Material men, furnishing repairs and supplies claims, allowing a claim to such land, was the ful.
to a vessel in her home port do not acquire thereby fillment of the condition stipulated in the deed of cession, and gave full assurance of the validity | law, as received in the United States.
any lien upon the vessel by the general maritime of the title.
600 25. A legislative confirmation of the claim to land is a recognition of the validity of such claim, sel in her home port in said State are valid, al
of material men for furnishing necessaries to a ves. and operates as effectually as a grant, or quit claim though the contract to furnish the same is a marifrom the government, and a subsequent patent is
time contract and can only be enforced by proceedonly documentary evidence of that title. If the
ings in rem in the District Court of the United claim be to quantity and not to a specific tract ca- States. pable of identification, a segregation by survey will
654 he required, and the confiirmation will then imme
7. To create for future services of a contractor a diately attach the title to the land segregated.
lien upon particular funds of his employer, there Idem.
606 26. An adverse possession of the premises by the ployer to apply them in payment of such services,
must not only be the express promise of the emdefendant, under claim and color of title made in
upon which the contractor relies, but there must be good faith, with payment of the taxes assessed
some act of appropriation of the fund on the part thereon, after the title of the heirs was perfected by of the employer. congressional confirmation and before the patent is
Dillon v. Barnard,
673 sued, continued for the period prescribed by the 8. By the Joint Resolution of Jan. 21, 1843, the Statute of Limitations of the State was a bar to Legislature of Pennsylvania intended to give to an any recovery by the heirs upon the patent.
unpaid contractor a priority of lien on the properIdem,
606 ty of a railroad company, over a mortgage made 27. Every confirmation of a Mexicaa land claim after the debt to the contractor was incurred. is limited by the extent of the claim made. A con
For v. Seal,
774 firmation of a claim to part of a grant does not in
9. The contractor's lien continues a prior incum
brance so long as the debt it was given to secure volve a recognition of the validity of the whole
remains unsatisfied. A judgment does not extingrant.
guish it. If the lien of the judgment expires that Brown v. Brackett,
of the debt remains. 28. It bas been the uniform policy of the govern
774 ment since the inauguration of our land system in
10. A sale under a decree to foreclose a subse1790, to reserve salt-springs from sale, for the use
quent mortgage does not devest the contractor's of the future States, and the same policy was ex- lien, and he need not look to the proceeds of the tended to the territory embraced by the States of sale for payment. Kansas and Nebraska.
774 Morton v. Nebraska,
STATE LAWS AND DECISIONS, 5. 30. Where grantees of land are tenants in com- 1. A Statute of Limitations begins to run as mon, one of them can convey his portion or interest
against a foreign corporation, from the time it was without affecting the rights of his co-tenants, and
a person within the State upon whom process to the deed by one joint tenant of the entire premises
commence a suit may be served. held by several, has no effect upon the interest of
Erpress Co. v. Ware,
422 bis co-tenants.
2. A State Statute of Limitations is not a bar to Stephen v. Beall,
an action upon coupons detached from bonds 31. A Spanish claim to land, if confirmed by the
and transferred to parties other than the holders commissioners, has the effect of a confirmation to
of the bonds (which bonds had been canceled). the legal representatives of the person to whom the
when it would not be a bar to an action on the original concession was made, where the commis- bonds themselves had they not been canceled. sioners passed upon nothing but the merits of the
Clark v. Iowa City,
427 original concession.
3. The statute of a State which extends the same Connoyer v. Schaeffer,
837 limitation to actions on all written contracts, sealed
or unsealed, begins to run against detached cou- could not be sustained prior to the recent change
in the 12th Admiralty Rūle.
SEE LANDLORD AND TENANT, 2.
PARTIES, 2, 5, 6.
RAILROADS, 4, 5.
WRIT OF ASSISTANCE, 1, 2.
1. A mortgage clause in a contract of lease can-
not operate as a mortgage, while the crops to which
grow, the lien attaches.
Butt v. Ellett,
2. A chattel mortgage which simply allows tbe
mortgagor to retain the possession and use of the
Robinson v. Elliott,
3. But a mortgage of a stock of goods, containing
a provision authorizing the mortgagor to retain
course of trade and to use the money thus obtained
to replenish his stock is invalid, and the court can,
as a matter of law, pronounce it void.
1. Those rivers are public navigable rivers in
U. S. v. The Montello,
2. The capability of use by the public for pur-
poses of transportation and commerce, affords the
true criterion of the navigability of a river, rather
3. If it be capable in its natural state of being
used for purposes of commerce, no matter in what
mode the commerce may be conducted, it is navi.
gable in fact, and becomes in law a public river or
highway. although its navigation may be encom-
pass with difficulties by reason of natural bar-
SEE EVIDENCE, 46.
1. It was negligence to steer a steamboat and
three barges combined, into a narrow passage be-
tween two piers, on a windy day when the banks of
250 the river were full, in the face of the dangers which
the evidence discloses.
Ins. Co. v. The Lady Pike.
2. Ship-owners are responsible for such a dis-
aster, if it results from the ignorance, unskillful.
ness or negligence of the master or those in charge
of the vessel.
The superintendent of the public garden of the
of July 28, 1866, entitled to an increase of salary.
U. 8. v. Saunders
APPEAL AND ERROR, PRACTICE ON, 1.
REMOVAL OF CAUSES, 6, 7, 9, 10.-
a party to a bill against him.
party to them and seeks to enforce the mortgage
654 | given on the purchase, the purchaser is a necessary
65+ be set aside, such grantee is a necessary party.
ties are too numerous to be brought before the
IVilliams v. Bankhead,
5. The owner of property mortgaged at the time 13. A patentable invention is a mental result. It of the foreclosure of the mortgage, whether he be must be new and shown to be of practical utility. the original mortgagor or his successor in interest,
566 is an indispensable party to the foreclosure suit. 14. A new and distinct device may be ingrafted Terrell 1. Allison,
631 upon an old invention and be an improvement. In 6. A decree, without his being made a party, will such case it is patentable. The prior patentee can; not bind him or parties claiming under him, al- not use it without the consent of the improver, and. though the latter may have acquired their interests the latter cannot use the original invention without after the suit was commenced.
the consent of the former.
566 7. Co-tenants who do not convey, need not be 15. But a mere carrying forward or new or more made parties defendant to a bill to enforce a con- extended application of the original thought, a veyance made by another co-tenant.
change only in form, proportions or degree, the Stephen v. Bcall,
780 substitution of equivalents, doing substantially the 8. The bringing of a suit by a plaintiff who same thing in the same way by substantially the shows no interest of any kind in the suit, is a fatal same means with better results, is not such invenobjection if taken by demurrer or answer.
tion as will sustain a patent.
560: 9. A bill dismissed for want of or a misjoinder of 16. An assignment of a patent recorded in tue parties does not conclude either party upon the Patent Office, and a supplementary agreement bemerits, and any of them may bring another suit, tween the same parties executed at the same time with proper parties, in regard to the same subject- not recorded, but each referring to the other, are to matter of the first one.
be construed together.
17. The person to whom the recorded instrument
was made was the assignee of the patentee, within SEE EVIDENCE, 26, 37.
the meaning of the patent laws; and he and those Bad character, drunkenness' and dishonesty of claiming under him may sue in the Circuit Courts one partner does not authorize the other partner of to prevent an infringement upon their rights. his own motion, to treat the partnership as ended
577 and take to himself all the benefits of their joint la. 18. Where the patentee is the infringer, as he bors and joint property, and if he does so, he is lia- cannot see himself the license, so far as the ble to refund one half to the other partner.
courts of the United States are concerned, can, in Ambler v. Whipple,
403 his own name, sue the patentee for infringement. PATENT RIGHTS.
19. A recorded assignment of a perfected inven. SEE DAMAGES, 1, 5, 6.
tion, made before a patent bas issued, carries with ESTOPPEL, 2.
it the patent when Issued, and by an assignment of EVIDENCE, 1, 3, 4.
an imperfect invention with all improvements on QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT, 1.
it that an inventor may make, the assignee be1. Where the language employed in the specifica- comes the equitable owner of a patent granted upon tion of a patent is clear and unambiguous, it must the perfected invention. speak its own construction,
57T Mitchell v. Tilghman,
123 20. Where the assignment is upon condition that 2. A patent for a useful result is void, if the de- it shall cease and be void in case the assignee shall, scribed result cannot be obtained by the described after a reasonable notice, neglect to make and sell means.
the patented article, there can be no forfeiture for Idem,
125 a neglect to make and sell, until after reasonable 3. An invention which constantly exposes the op- notice of the default. erator to the loss of his life or to great bodily harm,
577 cannot be regarded as useful within the meaning of 21. Letters patent may be granted for an inventhe patent law.
tion which consists entirely in a new combination of Idem,
123 old ingredients, if the new combination of old in4. Two things are not the same under the patent gredients produces a new and useful result. law when one is in practice substantially better
Gill v. Wells,
699 than the other, and the second improvement is not 22. Re-issued patents, in order that they may be gained by the same means or known mechanical valid, must be for the same invention as the surequivalents.
rendered originals. Invalid and inoperative pat. Idem,
123 ents may be surrendered and re-issued for the same 5. A new combination, if it produces a new and invention. useful result, is patentable, although all its constit
699 uents were well known and in common use before 23. A patentee cannot surrender a patent for a the combination was made.
combination of old ingredients, and amend the Hailes v. Van Wormer,
241 specification by striking out one of the ingredients 6. Combined results are not necessarily a novel and inserting in lieu thereof other devices without result.
an allegation that they are the equivalents of the Idem,
241 one stricken out. 7. No one, by bringing together several old de
699 vices without producing a new and useful result, 24. An equivalent, in such a case, means that the the joint product of the elements of the combina- ingredient substituted for the one withdrawn pertion and something more than an aggregate of old forms the same function as the other, and that it results, can acquire a right to prevent others from was well known at the date of the patent as a using the same devices, either singly or in other proper substitute for the one omitted. combinations, or, even if a new and useful result is
69! obtained can prevent others from using some of the 25. A party who merely substitutes another old devices, omitting others, in combination.
ingredient for one of the ingredients of a patented Idem.
241 combination, is an infringer if the substitute per8. A well known device applied to stoves long be- forms the same function as the ingredient for which fore the patent for it was granted, is not invention. it was substituted, and was well known at the date Iliem,
241 of the patent as a proper substitute for the omitted 9. Walker's patent for clothes wringers consid- ingredient. ered. What is not an infringement thereon.
699 Washing Machine Co. *. Tool Co., 303 26. If the ingredient substituted was new or per10. Blair's invention of "a new and useful rubber formed substantially a different function, or was head for pencils” was not patentable as there was not known at the date of the plaintiff's patent as nothing new in it.
a proper substitute for the one omitted, he does not Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard,
410 infringe, 11. An idea of itself is not patentable, but a new
in a legal way.
2. A voluntary payment cannot be recovered 1. Where it is entirely clear that the plaintif
cannot recover, it is proper for the court to direct
528 a verdict for defendant but not otherwise.
2. A point pot taken in the court below cannot be
3. New matter in an answer, not responsive to
anything in the bill, must be sustained by proof to
be of any avail as a defense.
4. Where the judge who made the order of sale
of property was the judge to approve the clain,
the order is presumptive proof of the requisite ap-
Nash v. Williams,
5. Where no exception was taken to a reference
to a master, nor to his account, an objection to its
result is not good.
Memphis v. Brown,
6. Where a party excepts to the admission of
testimony he must state his objections specifically,
and is confined to his specific objection. If he as-
619 cannot avail him.
Burton v. Drings,
alent to a personal service of process upon par-
Habich v. Folger,
Creighton v. Kerr,
8. A withdrawal of appearance by defendant
619 without prejudice to plaintiff in an attachment
proceeding after a rule to plead had been served,
leaves the plaintiff at liberty to enter a personal
judgment against defendant, as upon default after
9. Evidence, in order to raise a question of law
upon it, must be incorporated in the bill of ex-
ceptions, or an agreed statement of facts.
Knapp v. R. R. Co.,
10. A jury to find facts is never required, where
U. 8. v. Clarke.
100 11. The return of the marshal which shows exact
McPhaul v. Lapsley,
13. Under the Civil Practice Act of Montana, in
ous if the alternative is not expressed upon its
387 face. If a delivery cannot in fact be made, a judg.
Boley v. Griswold,
Packet Co. v. Clough,
cree of the District Court and dismiss the appeal.
time of civil war, when the defendant was within
653 the lines of the enemy, it will be set aside, together
Monger v. Shirley,
673 | fects and irregularities which might have been ob-
viated by retaking the deposition, must be noted
when the deposition is taken, or be presented by a
motion to suppress before the trial is begun, and
Deane v. Glenn,
of the Board of Trustees of a city, is sufficient
19. Where a final decree covering the entire orig.
inal case, existed, further relief can be reached, if
at all, only by a supplemental bill. It is a gross er-
ror to allow an amended bill to be filed.
French ". Hay,
20. An amended bill is esteemed a part of the
original bill and a continuation of the suit. New
process is not necessary upon an amended bill as ing creditor's judgment, and the penalty of the re-
1. The question whether the difference in degree
851 between two patents is sufficient or insufficient to
to be determined by the jury in an action at law, or
by the coirt in a suit in equity.
the court, so far as it involves matters of law, and
Ins. Co. v. Scarer,
877 3. The question, whether the death of the insured
was caused by his willful exposure to an unneces-
sary danger or peril, was a question of fact for the
4. The question of reasonable time, when one to
be determined by the court.
Nunez v. Dautel,
5. Whether the circumstance, that there was no
lookout at the bow of a vessel, when the collision
occurred, was a contributing fault, is a question of
Rogers v. The s. B. Wheeler,
SEX BONDS, 1-3.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 4.
CONTRACTS, 10, 11, 28.
CORPORATIONS, 5, 6, 11.
LANDS, 5, 16-19, 21, 22.
TAXES AND TAX SALES, 22, 24-26, 29-32,
nant to the Constitution of the United States
fornier is not.
the State one-fifth of the whole amount received
252 for the transportation of passengers, is not re-
Jackson v. Ludeling,
472 5. He has no right to enter into an agreement to
Erie R. Co. v. Pa.,
614 7. An agreement to pay dividends on preferred
ings applicable to such dividends, and if, in that
727 condition of things, there are no net earnings ap-
St. John v. Erie R. Co.,