Idem,

556

21. The Act of Congress of May 15, 1856, grant-
ing lands to Iowa for railroad purposes authorized
a sale of 120 sections in advance of the construc-
tion of any part of the road to be constructed and
the purchasers thereof took a good title, although
no part of the road was constructed when their
sale was made. The conditions, as to completion
of the road imposed by the State were conditions
subsequent.

Railroad Co. v. Courtright,

582
22. There was no restriction upon the State as
to the place where the 120 sections should be se-
lected, except that they should be within twenty
miles of the road.

Idem.

606

25. A legislative confirmation of the claim to
land is a recognition of the validity of such claim,
and operates as effectually as a grant, or quit claim
from the government, and a subsequent patent is
only documentary evidence of that title. If the
claim be to quantity and not to a specific tract ca-
pable of identification, a segregation by survey will
be required, and the confiirmation will then imme-
diately attach the title to the land segregated.
Idem.

606
26. An adverse possession of the premises by the
defendant, under claim and color of title made in
good faith, with payment of the taxes assessed
thereon, after the title of the heirs was perfected by
congressional confirmation and before the patent is-
sued, continued for the period prescribed by the
Statute of Limitations of the State was a bar to
any recovery by the heirs upon the patent.
Idem,

606

27. Every confirmation of a Mexican land claim
is limited by the extent of the claim made. A con-
firmation of a claim to part of a grant does not in-
volve a recognition of the validity of the whole
grant.

Brown v. Brackett,

622
28. It has been the uniform policy of the govern-
ment since the inauguration of our land system in
1790, to reserve salt-springs from sale, for the use
of the future States, and the same policy was ex-
tended to the territory embraced by the States of
Kansas and Nebraska.

32. But where the claimant presented before the
Board, besides the original title, evidences of de-
rivative title, and the commissioners decided upon
both, the confirmation operates as a grant to the
claimant, although his name was omitted in the
form of confirmation.
Idem,

LEGACY.

See WILLS, 2, 3.

LIENS.

SEE CONFISCATION, 3.

MARITIME LAW, 3, 5, 10.

STATE LAWS AND DECISIONS, 9.
TAXES AND TAX SALES, 12.
USURY, 4.

837

Idem,

Belle of the Sea v. Johnson,

259
3. A ship is not discharged from a bottomry lien,
unless the bond is actually paid. What is not pay-
ment.
362
4. A person having a lien upon property does not
lose it by taking a bill of sale of the same property,
the bill of sale being voidable, and there being no
evidence of intent to abandon the lien.

5. Material men, furnishing repairs and supplies
to a vessel in her home port do not acquire thereby
law, as received in the United States.
any lien upon the vessel by the general maritime

Rodd v. Heartt,

654

6. Liens granted by the laws of a State in favor
of material men for furnishing necessaries to a ves-
sel in her home port in said State are valid, al-
though the contract to furnish the same is a mari-
time contract and can only be enforced by proceed-
ings in rem in the District Court of the United
States.

Idem,

654

7. To create for future services of a contractor a
lien upon particular funds of his employer, there
must not only be the express promise of the em-
ployer to apply them in payment of such services,
upon which the contractor relies, but there must be
some act of appropriation of the fund on the part
of the employer.

Dillon v. Barnard,

673
8. By the Joint Resolution of Jan. 21, 1843, the
Legislature of Pennsylvania intended to give to an
unpaid contractor a priority of lien on the proper-
ty of a railroad company, over a mortgage made
after the debt to the contractor was incurred.

For v. Seal,

774

9. The contractor's lien continues a prior incum-
brance so long as the debt it was given to secure
remains unsatisfied. A judgment does not extin-
guish it. If the lien of the judgment expires that
of the debt remains.

7. The general system of maritime law, when the
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.
Thus adopted, it became the maritime law of the
United States, operating uniformly in the whole
country.
Idem,

654
8. The question as to the true limits of maritime
law and admiralty jurisdiction is exclusively a ju-
dicial one.

Idem,
654
9. But the courts cannot change maritime law;
changes must be made by the legislative depart-
ment. Where Congress has not exercised this
power, States may, in particular cases, legislate.
Idem,
654

10. Any person having a specific lien on or a
vested right in a surplus fund in court, may apply
by petition for the protection of his interest under
the 43d Admiralty Rule.

11. Libels for supplies furnished at the home port

4. Where a person will be directly affected by a
decree, he is an indispensable party, unless the par-
ties are too numerous to be brought before the
court.
184

Williams v. Bankhead,

Hailes v. Van Wormer,

241
6. Combined results are not necessarily a novel
result.
Idem,
241
7. No one, by bringing together several old de-
vices without producing a new and useful result,
the joint product of the elements of the combina-
tion and something more than an aggregate of old
results, can acquire a right to prevent others from
using the same devices, either singly or in other
combinations, or, even if a new and useful result is
obtained can prevent others from using some of the
devices, omitting others, in combination.

Idem.

241

8. A well known device applied to stoves long be-
fore the patent for it was granted, is not invention.
Idem,
241

9. Walker's patent for clothes wringers consid-
ered. What is not an infringement thereon.
Washing Machine Co. v. Tool Co., 303
10. Blair's invention of "a new and useful rubber
head for pencils" was not patentable as there was
nothing new in it.

Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard, 410
11. An idea of itself is not patentable, but a new
device, by which it may be made practically useful
is.
410

Idem,

12. Under the Patent Act of 1837 disclaimers can
be made as well after as before the commencement
of the suit, but the court should, when a disclaimer
is made after suit commenced, impose such terms
as justice might require.
566

Smith v. Nichols,

19. A recorded assignment of a perfected inven-
tion, made before a patent has issued, carries with
it the patent when issued, and by an assignment of
an imperfect invention with all improvements on
it that an inventor may make, the assignee be-
comes the equitable owner of a patent granted upon
the perfected invention.

Idem,

577

20. Where the assignment is upon condition that
it shall cease and be void in case the assignee shall,
after a reasonable notice, neglect to make and sell
the patented article, there can be no forfeiture for
a neglect to make and sell, until after reasonable
notice of the default.

21. Letters patent may be granted for an inven-
tion which consists entirely in a new combination of
old ingredients, if the new combination of old in-
gredients produces a new and useful result.

Gill v. Wells,

699

22. Re-issued patents, in order that they may be
valid, must be for the same invention as the sur-
rendered originals. Invalid and inoperative pat-
ents may be surrendered and re-issued for the same
invention.
699

Idem,

23. A patentee cannot surrender a patent for a
combination of old ingredients, and amend the
specification by striking out one of the ingredients
and inserting in lieu thereof other devices without
an allegation that they are the equivalents of the
one stricken out.
699

Idem,

25. A party who merely substitutes another old
ingredient for one of the ingredients of a patented
combination, is an infringer if the substitute per-
forms the same function as the ingredient for which
It was substituted, and was well known at the date
of the patent as a proper substitute for the omitted
ingredient.
Idem,
699

26. If the ingredient substituted was new or per-
formed substantially a different function, or was
not known at the date of the plaintiff's patent as
a proper substitute for the one omitted, he does not
infringe.
699

1. The pleadings must show the facts necessary
to give the court jurisdiction as to the parties in an
action.

Morgan v. Gay,

100
2. One, who has under the Act for the adjust-
ment of land claims in Louisiana, filed a bill for
certain lands, and afterwards discovered that the
true right to the lands claimed existed not in him
self but in another, cannot by a supplemental
petition, allege such other title in support of his
bill, especially where such other title was barred
by the Statute of Limitations.

202
3. An answer to be good, must overcome the case
made by the complainant. If the facts in the com.
plaint are admitted, it must state other facts, suffi-
cient, if true, to defeat the action.

U. S. v. Innerarity's Heirs,

Gillette v. Bullard,

387

4. Where the answer to an action on an appeal
bond alleged the taking of the appeal, but no-
where averred that it had been perfected nor that
at the time of the commencement of the action it
was still pending, the answer contains no defense,
it being averred in the complaint and not denied in
the answer, that the judgment was affirmed on the
appeal.

387
Idem,
5. Where a plea, although to the whole indict-
ment, met only part of it, it will be held bad upon
demurrer.

Moore v. Mississippi,

653
6. A demurrer to a bill in equity does not admit
the correctness of averments as to the meaning of
an instrument set forth in or annexed to the bill.
Dillon v. Barnard,

PLEDGE.

673

APPEAL AND ERROR, PRACTICE ON, passim.
EXCEPTIONS, 1, 2.

REMOVAL OF CAUSES, passim.
SHERIFF.

SUPERSEDEAS, 1-5.

116
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.

Roach v. Summers,

252

4. Where the judge who made the order of sale
of property was the judge to approve the claim,
the order is presumptive proof of the requisite ap-
proval.

Nash v. Williams,

254
5. Where no exception was taken to a reference
to a master, nor to his account, an objection to its
result is not good.

8. A withdrawal of appearance by defendant
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
appearance.

Idem,

309

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.,

328

10. A jury to find facts is never required, where
there is no traverse of those alleged, and where a
defendant has defaulted.

13. Under the Civil Practice Act of Montana, in
an action to recover personal property, there can be
no judgment for the value if there can be a deliv-
ery of the property; but a judgment is not errone-
ous if the alternative is not expressed upon its
face. If a delivery cannot in fact be made, a judg
ment for the value is sufficient.
Boley v. Griswold,

375
14. When the error assigned is to the rejection
of evidence, the specification must quote the full
substance of the evidence offered.
406

17. Objections to a deposition which relate to de
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
when such objections are withheld until the trial is
in progress they must be regarded as waived, and
the deposition should be admitted in evidence.

Deane v. Glenn,

476
18. The service of a summons on a President of
of the Board of Trustees of a city, is sufficient
service on the corporation.