06. LiFeodorantedeart the laws of a State in f&$4

19. No

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,

20. Where the title is in the State, timber cut
upon the land belongs to the State, and can be pur- See WILLS, 2, 3.
sued wherever it is carried. All the remedies are
open to the owner which the law affords in other LIENS.
cases of the wrongful removal or conversion of per- SEE CONFISCATION, 3.
sonal property.

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.


259 Idem,


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.


654 Idem,

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,


29.. Patent for lands which have been previously
granted, reserved from sale or appropriated, are SEE BANKRUPTCY, 19 20.



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

[ocr errors]

or unsealed, begins to run against detached cou- could not be sustained prior to the recent change
pons from their respective maturities.

in the 12th Admiralty Rūle.


4. The Statute of Limitations was suspended in
the rebellious States during the existence of the MORTGAGES.
late rebellion.

R088 v. Jones,


PARTIES, 2, 5, 6.




1. A mortgage clause in a contract of lease can-

not operate as a mortgage, while the crops to which
1. Mandamus is the appropriate remedy to re- it relates are not in existence, but when the crops
store an attorney disbarred, where the court below

grow, the lien attaches.
has exceeded its jurisdiction in the matter.

Butt v. Ellett,

Ex parte Robinson,


2. A chattel mortgage which simply allows tbe
2. Where the law has provided that a tax shall

mortgagor to retain the possession and use of the
be levied to pay corporation bonds, a mandamus property until breach of the condition, is, when
after judgment to compel the levy of the tax is the duly recorded, prima facie valid.
only remedy.

Robinson v. Elliott,

Heine v. Leree Comrs.,


3. But a mortgage of a stock of goods, containing
3. If the Circuit Court refuses to obey the man

a provision authorizing the mortgagor to retain
date of this court, this court may, by mandamus, possession for the purpose of selling in the usual
compel it to do so, but cannot control its discre-

course of trade and to use the money thus obtained
tion while proceeding, when directed to proceed as

to replenish his stock is invalid, and the court can,
right and justice shall require.

as a matter of law, pronounce it void.
Ex parte Sawyer,


4. Where Congress referred a claim to the Court
of Claims for judicial determination and conferred NAVIGABLE RIVERS.
special jurisdiction for that purpose, the right of
appeal to this court necessarily follows, and this

1. Those rivers are public navigable rivers in
court will grant a mandamus to the Court of Claims law, which are navigable in fact.

U. S. v. The Montello,

to direct it to allow an appeal in such a case.
Vigo's Case (Ex parte United States), 690

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
than the extent and manner of that use.


3. If it be capable in its natural state of being
LIENS, 1-3, 5, 6.

used for purposes of commerce, no matter in what

mode the commerce may be conducted, it is navi.
PIERS, 1, 2.

gable in fact, and becomes in law a public river or
PILOTS, 1, 2.

highway. although its navigation may be encom-

pass with difficulties by reason of natural bar-
1. The rules of navigation require every steam- riers.
ship, when in a fog. "to go at a moderate speed.'


What is such speed must depend upon the circum- 4. Fox River is a navigable water of the United
stances of each case.

The Pennsylvania v. Troop,


2. Advances made in a foreign port to equip a
vessel and procure a cargo for her, are presumed NEGLIGENCE.
to have been made on the credit of the vessel.

Ins. Co. v. Baring,

3. Such advances are a lien upon the ship, and

1. It was negligence to steer a steamboat and
such lien gives the lender an insurable interest in

three barges combined, into a narrow passage be-
the ship.

tween two piers, on a windy day when the banks of

250 the river were full, in the face of the dangers which
4. A contract for building a ship or for supplying

the evidence discloses.
engines, timber or other materials for her con-

Ins. Co. v. The Lady Pike.

struction, is not a maritime contract.

2. Ship-owners are responsible for such a dis-
Edwards v. Elliott,


aster, if it results from the ignorance, unskillful.
5. State Legislatures cannot create a maritime

ness or negligence of the master or those in charge
lien, nor confer jurisdiction upon state courts to

of the vessel.
enforce such a lien by a suit or proceeding in rem,


as practiced in tbe admiralty courts. The original OFFICERS.
jurisdiction to enforce such a lien by that mode of
proceeding is exclusive in the U. S. District Courts. SEE JOINT RESOLUTION, 1, 2.

6. While the general maritime law is the basis of Agricultural Department was not, under the Act

The superintendent of the public garden of the
the maritime law of the United States, it is only so
far operative in this country as it is adopted by

of July 28, 1866, entitled to an increase of salary.
the laws and usages thereof.

U. 8. v. Saunders

It has no inherent
force of its own.

Rodd 0. Heartt,

7. The general system of maritime law, when the SEE APPEAL AND ERROR, 34.
Constitution was adopted, was referred to when it

was declared in that instrument that the judicial

power of the United States shall extend to all

cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.

REMOVAL OF CAUSES, 6, 7, 9, 10.-
Thus adopted, it became the maritime law of the

United States, operating uniformly in the whole 1. A surety is entitled to have his principal made

a party to a bill against him.

Robertson 1. Carson,

8. The question as to the true limits of maritime 2. Where a bill charges fraud and conspiracy in a
law and admiralty jurisdiction is exclusively a ju- sale by executors, and that the purchaser was a
dicial one.

party to them and seeks to enforce the mortgage

654 | given on the purchase, the purchaser is a necessary
9. But the courts cannot change maritime law; party.
changes must be made by the legislauve depart-


ment. Where Congress has not exercised 'this 3. When the purchaser from the executors has
power, States may, in particular cases, legislate. deeded the property, the sale of which is sought to

65+ be set aside, such grantee is a necessary party.
10. Any person having a specific lien on or a


vested right in a surplus fund in court, may apply 4. Where a person will be directly affected by a
by petition for the protection of his interest under decree, he is an indispensable party, unless the par.
the 43d Admiralty Rule.

ties are too numerous to be brought before the

654 court.
11. Libels for supplies furnished at the home port

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.
House v. Muilen,


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.
838 Littlefiel v. Perry,


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


device, by which it may be made practically useful


12. Under the Patent Act of 1837 disclaimers can SEE ESTOPPEL, 3, 4.
be made as well after as before the commencement 1. Where a particular mode in which payment
of the suit, but the court should, when a disclaimer was to be made, was illegal, the debtor cannot
is made after suit commenced, impose such terms allege such illegality as a defense against payment
as justice might require.

in a legal way.
Smith ?. Nichols,

Memphis v. Brown.


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
Hamilton v. Dillin,

528 a verdict for defendant but not otherwise.
Klein v. Russell,


2. A point pot taken in the court below cannot be

mnade here.
1. A pier erected in the navigable water of the
Miszissippi river for the solc use of the riparian



3. New matter in an answer, not responsive to
owner, without authority except such as may arise

anything in the bill, must be sustained by proof to
from his ownership of the adjacent shore, is an un-
lawful structure, and the owner is liable for the

be of any avail as a defense.
Roach v. Summers,

sinking of a barge against it in the night.
Atlee v. Packet Co.


4. Where the judge who made the order of sale
2. Such a

of property was the judge to approve the clain,
structure differs materially from
wharves or piers made to aid navigation, and reg.

the order is presumptive proof of the requisite ap-

ulated by city or town ordinances, or by statutes

Nash v. Williams,

or other competent authority and from piers built

5. Where no exception was taken to a reference
for railroad bridges across navigable streams,

to a master, nor to his account, an objection to its
which are authorized by Acts of Congress or stat-

result is not good.
utes of the States.

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-
1. Pilots of navigable rivers, qualifications of. sign no ground of exception, the mere objection
Atlee v. Packet Co.,

619 cannot avail him.
2. A pilot who ran his vessel against a pier

Burton v. Drings,

which he should have known was there, but did 7. Appearance by an authorized attorney is equiv-
not, was in fault for want of that knowledge, and

alent to a personal service of process upon par-
alsó in fault for hugging the shore near where he

knew that a mill and boom were when the current

Habich v. Folger,

of the river would have carried him into safe and

Creighton v. Kerr,

deep water further out.

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
SEE APPEAI. AXD ERROR, 16. 20, 31.




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
1. The pleadings must show the facts necessary there is no traverse of those alleged, and where a
to give the court jurisdiction as to the parties in an defendant has defaulted.

U. 8. v. Clarke.

Morgan v. Gay,

100 11. The return of the marshal which shows exact
2. One, who has under the Act for the adjust compliance with the order of the court directing
ment of 'land claims in Louisiana, filed a bili for service, made in the manner in which it should be
certain lands, and afterwards discovered that the made establishes sufficient service.
true right to the lands claimed existed not in him


self but in another, cannot by a supplemental 12. Where an affidavit is required by law to be
petition, allege such other title in support of his filed within a certain time, one filed later may be
bill, especially where such other title was barred striken from the files.
by the statute of Limitations.

McPhaul v. Lapsley,

U. 8. v. Innerarity's Heirs,


13. Under the Civil Practice Act of Montana, in
3. Ap answer to be good, must overcome the case an action to recover personal property, there can be
made by the complainant. If the facts in the com- no judgment for the value if there can be a deliv-
plaint are admitted, it must state other facts, suff- ery of the property ; but a judgment is not errone-
cient, if true, to defeat the action.

ous if the alternative is not expressed upon its
Gillette v. Bullard,

387 face. If a delivery cannot in fact be made, a judg.
4. Where the answer to an action on an appeal ment for the value is sufficient.
'bond alleged the taking of the appeal, but no-

Boley v. Griswold,

wbere averred that it had been perfected nor that 14. When the error assigned is to the rejection
at the time of the commencement of the action it of evidence, the specification must quote the full
was still pending, the answer contains no defense, substance of the evidence offered.
it being averred in the complaint and not denied in

Packet Co. v. Clough,

the answer, that the judgment was affirmed on the 15. A Circuit Court cannot both affirm the de.

cree of the District Court and dismiss the appeal.

Wilson V. Bell,

5. Where a plea, although to the whole indict- 16. Where a judgment was obtained, without
ment, met only part of it, it will be held bad upon actual service of process, on a forged note, in a

time of civil war, when the defendant was within
Moore v. Mississippi,

653 the lines of the enemy, it will be set aside, together
6. A demurrer to a bill in equity does not admit with a sale made thereunder.
the correctness of averments as to the meaning of

Monger v. Shirley,

an instrument set forth in or annexed to the bill. 17. Objections to a deposition which relate to de-
Dillon v. Barnard,

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
Where promissory notes are pledged by a debtor when such objections are withheld until the trial is
to secure a debt, 'the pledgee acquires a special in progress they must be regarded as waived, and
property in them, which is not lost by their being the deposition should be admitted in evidence.
redelivered to the pledgor for collection. Money

Deane v. Glenn,

which he may collect upon them is the specific 18. The service of a summons on a President of
property of the creditor.

of the Board of Trustees of a city, is sufficient
Clark v. Isclin,

service on the corporation.
Sacramento 1. Fowle,


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-
to defendants who are already before the court. plevin bond is the measure of his liability.


21. Where a decree is made in the State Court,
and an amended bill is filed, and the action is then

transferred to the Circuit Court, the latter court
cannot on the amended bill, set aside the original SEE BILLS AND NOTES, passim.

22. Where a decree pro confesso has been im. QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT.
properly entered against one, the proper method of
relief is by motion to the court to vacate

1. The question whether the difference in degree

851 between two patents is sufficient or insufficient to
23. Where plaintiff's evidence is sufficient to jus- prove an alleged infringement, is a question of fact
tify the court in leaving the case to the jury, the

to be determined by the jury in an action at law, or
court should refuse a nonsuit.

by the coirt in a suit in equity.
Pailroad Co. v. Pollard,

Mitchell v. Tilghman,

24. There is no error in the refusal of a court to 2. The language of a policy is to be construed by
charge the jury as requested, where the request in-

the court, so far as it involves matters of law, and
volves the determination of a cuestion of fact by by the jury aided by the court when it involves
the court, upon which there was a conflict of evi- law and fact.

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
An agent living in one of the revolted States had

lookout at the bow of a vessel, when the collision
no right to take, during the late war, confederate

occurred, was a contributing fault, is a question of
money, or bank-notes secured by confederate bonds,

in discharge of a debt due to his principal who


Rogers v. The s. B. Wheeler,
lived in a local state. It could only be discharged
by payment in legal currency of the U. S.

Fretz V. Stover,




CONTRACTS, 10, 11, 28.


1. Sureties on a bond for the transportation of

LANDS, 5, 16-19, 21, 22.

LIENS, 8-10.
certain tobacco named therein. from one district

TAXES AND TAX SALES, 22, 24-26, 29-32,
to another, are responsible for its safe delivery.

Ryan v. U. 8.

2. Neither the fraud of the principal in filing the 1. A stipulation in the charter of a railroad com-
boxes with other substances than tobacco, nor the pany, that the company shall pay to the State a
carelessness of the inspecting, officer will release bonus, or a portion of its earnings, is not repug-
the sureties from this obligation.

nant to the Constitution of the United States

R. R. Co. v. Maryland,

3. Although an assessor was not permitted to ap- 2. Such a stipulation is not a tax on the trans-
prove a distiller's bond unless the distillery prop- portation of goods or persons from one State to
erty was unincumbered, yet the sureties in such a another. The latter is an interference with and a
bond will not be discharged because the assessor regulation of commerce between the States, and
approved of the bond while the distillery property beyond the power of the State to impose. The
was incunbered.

fornier is not.
Osborne v. U. S..


4. An agreement made by the principal does not 3. The stipulation in the charter of the Balti-
work a discharge of his sureties, unless it places more and Ohio Railroad Company, that the Com-
them in a different position from that which they pany, at the end of every six months, shall pay to
occupied before it was made.

the State one-fifth of the whole amount received
Roach v. Summers.

252 for the transportation of passengers, is not re-
5. Where a distiller gave a bond with sureties, pugnant to the Constitution of the United States.
specifying the particular location in a town where


he was to be such distiller, the sureties are not 4. A person owning part of bonds against a rail-
liable for U. S. taxes assessed against him in re. road, secured by a mortgage, has no right so to use
spect of his business of distilling carried on in an. them as to become the owner of the property
other location in the same town, although he aid mortgaged at the lowest possible price, leaving the
pot become a distiller at the location named in the honds beld by his associate holders unpaid.

Jackson v. Ludeling,

U. 8. v. Boecker,

472 5. He has no right to enter into an agreement to
6. Where the printed form of a bond, with its purchase the railroad and mortgaged property at
blank spaces, was signed by a surety, and delivered the lowest possible price, for the exclusive benefit
to the principal with authority to fill the blanks and of the parties to the agreement, with no reference
perfect and deliver the instrument as a bond to to the other bond bolders.
secure his faithful service in the office of collector


of internal revenue, such surety, when suod on the 6. The decision of the Supreme Court of Penn-
bond is estopped from claiming, as against the gov. sylvania, that the Erie Railway Company was doing
ernment, the benefit of his private instructions to business in that State, in the sense of the State Act
such principal, or a private agreement with him, of May, 1868, is conclusive upon this court and is
as to another penalty to be inserted in the bond, or approved by it, although only forty-two miles of it
as to other sureties than those actually inserted by lie within that State.

Erie R. Co. v. Pa.,

Butler v. U. 8.,

614 7. An agreement to pay dividends on preferred
7. If a return be awarded in a replevin suit, the stock of a railroad, out of the net earnings of the
stirety in the replevin bond is liable on the condi- road, refers to future net earnings of the current
tion of the bond to return, and this without execu- year, and the company may, after the agreement.
tion or other demand for its return. The judgment incur new obligations which diminish the net earn.
establishes the liability.

ings applicable to such dividends, and if, in that
Sweeney v. Lomme,

727 condition of things, there are no net earnings ap-
8. The liability of the surety in the replerin bundplicable to the dividends, the company cannot be
is not restricted to the value of the interest of the required to pay them.
defendant in the property seized by the sheriff. The

St. John v. Erie R. Co.,

value of the property itself at the time it was re- 8. A railroad company may subject itself to the
plevied limited by the debt still due on the attach- obligations of a carrier beyond its own line, and in
Wall. 19, 20, 21, 22.


« ForrigeFortsett »