« ForrigeFortsett »
6. Combined results are not necessarily a novel
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.
17. The person to whom the recorded instrument
was made was the assignee of the patentee, within
the meaning of the patent laws; and he and those
claiming under him may sue in the Circuit Courts
to prevent an infringement upon their rights.
18. Where the patentee is the infringer, as he
cannot see himself the license, so far as the
courts of the United States are concerned, can, in
his own name, sue the patentee for infringement.
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.
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.
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
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.
24. An equivalent, in such a case, means that the
ingredient substituted for the one withdrawn per-
forms the same function as the other, and that it
was well known at the date of the patent as a
proper substitute for the one omitted.
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
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
SEE ESTOPPEL, 3, 4.
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.
U. S. v. Innerarity's Heirs,
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.
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
5. Where a plea, although to the whole indict-
ment, met only part of it, it will be held bad upon
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,
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 claim,
the order is presumptive proof of the requisite ap-
5. Where no exception was taken to a reference
to a master, nor to his account, an objection to its
result is not good.
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-
sign no ground of exception, the mere objection
cannot avail him.
7. Appearance by an authorized attorney is equiv
alent to a personal service of process upon par-
Habich v. Folger,
Creighton v. Kerr,
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
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.
10. A jury to find facts is never required, where
there is no traverse of those alleged, and where a
defendant has defaulted.
11. The return of the marshal which shows exact
compliance with the order of the court directing
service, made in the manner in which it should be
made establishes sufficient service.
12. Where an affidavit is required by law to be
filed within a certain time, one filed later may be
striken from the files.
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,
14. When the error assigned is to the rejection
evidence, the specification must quote the full
substance of the evidence offered.
Packet Co. v. Clough,
15. A Circuit Court cannot both affirm the de-
cree of the District Court and dismiss the appeal.
Wilson v. Bell,
16. Where a judgment was obtained, without
actual service of process, on a forged note, in a
time of civil war, when the defendant was within
the lines of the enemy, it will be set aside, together
with a sale made thereunder.
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.
18. The service of a summons on a President of
of the Board of Trustees of a city, is sufficient
service on the corporation.
19. Where a final decree covering the entire orig-
inal case, existed, further relief can be reached, if
APPEAL AND ERROR, PRACTICE ON, passim. at all, only by a supplemental bill. It is a gross er-
6. Where the printed form of a bond, with its
blank spaces, was signed by a surety, and delivered
to the principal with authority to fill the blanks and
perfect and deliver the instrument as a bond to
secure his faithful service in the office of collector
of internal revenue, such surety, when suod on the
bond is estopped from claiming, as against the gov.
ernment, the benefit of his private instructions to
such principal, or a private agreement with him,
as to another penalty to be inserted in the bond, or
as to other sureties than those actually inserted by
7. If a return be awarded in a replevin suit, the
surety in the replevin bond is liable on the condi-
tion of the bond to return, and this without execu-
tion or other demand for its return. The judgment
establishes the liability.
8. The liability of the surety in the replevin bond
is not restricted to the value of the interest of the
defendant in the property seized by the sheriff. The
value of the property itself at the time it was re-
plevied limited by the debt still due on the attach-
TAXES AND TAX SALES, 22, 24-26, 29-32,
1. A stipulation in the charter of a railroad com-
pany, that the company shall pay to the State a
bonus, or a portion of its earnings, is not repug-
nant to the Constitution of the United States
2. Such a stipulation is not a tax on the trans-
portation of goods or persons from one State to
another. The latter is an interference with and a
regulation of commerce between the States, and
beyond the power of the State to impose. The
former is not.
3. The stipulation in the charter of the Balti-
more and Ohio Railroad Company, that the Com-
pany, at the end of every six months, shall pay to
the State one-fifth of the whole amount received
for the transportation of passengers, is not re-
pugnant to the Constitution of the United States.
4. A person owning part of bonds against a rail-
road, secured by a mortgage, has no right so to use
them as to become the owner of the property
mortgaged at the lowest possible price, leaving the
bonds held by his associate holders unpaid.
5. He has no right to enter into an agreement to
purchase the railroad and mortgaged property at
the lowest possible price, for the exclusive benefit
of the parties to the agreement, with no reference
to the other bond holders.
6. The decision of the Supreme Court of Penn-
sylvania, that the Erie Railway Company was doing
business in that State, in the sense of the State Act
of May, 1868, is conclusive upon this court and is
approved by it, although only forty-two miles of it
lie within that State.
7. An agreement to pay dividends on preferred
stock of a railroad, out of the net earnings of the
road, refers to future net earnings of the current
year, and the company may, after the agreement,
incur new obligations which diminish the net earn-
ings applicable to such dividends, and if, in that
condition of things, there are no net earnings ap-
plicable to the dividends, the company cannot be
required to pay them.
St. John v. Erie R. Co.,
8. A railroad company may subject itself to the
obligations of a carrier beyond its own line, and in
9. A motion of one defendant to transfer the
cause, as to himself, from the State to the Circuit
Court, cannot be granted unless there can be a final
determination of the case, so far as it concerns him,
without the presence of the other defendant as a
5. In a suit on a replevin bond, the defendants
cannot avail themselves of the failure of the court
to render in the replevin suit the alternative judg-
ment for the return of the property or for its value,
even if that were an error.
Sweeney v. Lomme,
1. One will be bound by a decree of the state
court if he was a party to the proceedings.
2. A judgment is conclusive upon a corporation,
and upon its receivers, when they were parties and
contested the claim, and, subsequently, the at.or-
ney for the receivers consented to its entry.
3. Where a point has been decided in a state
court, it is res judicata between the parties, and
cannot be litigated anew on the same contract in a
Tioga R. R. Co. v. B. & C. R. R. Co.
4. A decree of the District Court in a bankruptcy
case is as conclusive as the decree of any other
court of general jurisdiction, and cannot be im-
peached except in the court where it was entered.
or by some direct proceeding in some other court of
5. Whenever a judgment or decree is procured
through fraud, or by collusion of the parties, for
the purpose of defrauding some third person, such
third person may show, even in a collateral pro-
ceeding, the fraud or collusion by which the judg-
2. What diminution will constitute an evasion of
10. Where the bill prayed a foreclosure of a mort- the rights of the first appropriator, will depend up-
on the question whether his use and enjoyment of
the water to the extent of the original appropria-
tion, has been impaired by the acts of the other
3. Whether upon a bill asserting that the prior
rights of the first appropriator have been invaded,
a court of equity will restrain the acts of the party
complained of, will depend upon whether the in
jury alleged be irremediable; whether an action at
law would afford adequate remedy; whether the
parties are able to pay the damages and other con-
siderations which govern a court of equity in is-
4. By the Act of Congress of July 26, 1866, the
customary law with respect to the use of water,
which has grown up among occupants of the public
land, is recognized as valid.
SEE ATTORNEY, 4.
VENDOR AND VENDEE, 1-4.
1. Upon a sale of personal property, the price to
be fixed by arbitration, if the arbitration be ren-
dered impossible by the act of the vendee, the
price must be fixed by the jury on a quantum vale-
Humaston v. Telegraph Co.,
2. Where the vendee agreed to pay for personal
property, certain shares of stock which he failed to
deliver, and is sued on the agreement, the value of
the stock, when the bargain was concluded and not
at any other time, is the evidence of the price of
1. Specific performance is never decreed, where
the party can be otherwise fully compensated.
Memphis v. Brown,
2. To justify a decree for the specific perform-
ance, by vendor, of a parol contract for the sale of
real estate, the contract sought to be enforced, and
its performance on the part of the vendee, must
be clearly proved.
Rogers Locomotive, etc., Co. v. Helm, 563
3. The agreed price, a description of the real es-
tate agreed to be sold and payment of such price,
must be shown.
10. Where the constitutionality of a state Act au
thorizing the issue of bonds, by a municipality, has
been affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State,
such decision is binding upon this court.
11. The Pennsylvania Act of May, 1868, does not
impair any obligation of the State not to impose a
tax upon the Erie Railway Company, created by
the several Acts in relation to that Company.
12. An Act, general in its language as to a sub-
ject is valid, although special legislation is for-
bidden in the State Constitution.
2. The writ of error may be served at any time
before, or simultaneously with, the filing of the
Telegraph Co. v. Eyser,
3. Where a judgment has been stayed by super-
sedeas before it has been enforced by execution, no
new supersedeas is necessary.
Commissioners v. Gorman,
4. A supersedeas stays proceedings only from the
filing of the bond. It prevents further proceeding
under an execution which has been issued, but
does not interfere with what has already been done.
5. Where the bond was filed too late to prevent
the removal of defendant from his office In pur
suance of the authority of the judgment, this court
cannot order him to be restored.
TAXES AND TAX SALES.
SEE BANKRUPTCY, 24.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1, 8-10.
STATE LAWS AND DECISIONS, 7.
1. The appropriate remedy against a municipality
for neglect to collect the tax to pay a judgment
against it, is a writ of mandamus commanding the
municipality to levy and collect the tax. A new
writ may issue as often as the occasion requires.
Rees v. Watertown,