V HOWARD.

5 How. 1-6, 12 L. 23, WOOD v. UNDERHILL.

Patents.- In order to support a patent the specification must be in such full, clear and exact terms as to enable any one skilled in the art to which it appertains to compound and use the invention without any experiments of his own, pp. 4, 5.

Cited and principle applied in Hogg v. Emerson, 6 How. 484, 12 L. 525, collecting authorities, holding patent of improvement in steam engine described with sufficient certainty; Jenkins v. Walker, 1 Holmes, 123, F. C. 7,275, holding patent of rubber composition void where specifications contained no statements of proportions of the ingredients; Badische Anilin, etc., Fabrik v. Kalle, 94 Fed. 167, collecting cases, requiring same particularity to establish anticipation. See also note to 31 Am. Dec. 205, upon necessary contents of specifications.

Patents.- In patents for machines, and for compositions of matter where any of the ingredients do not always possess exactly the same properties in the same degree, the sufficiency of the description is in general a question of fact for the jury, pp. 4-5.

Cited in Consolidated Valve Co. v. Crosby Valve Co., 113 U. S. 177, 28 L. 945, 5 S. Ct. 524, holding description sufficient as matter of law, which allowed for difference in position of flange under different circumstances.

Patents. - When the specifications on application for patent of a new composition gives only the names of substances to be mixed together, without stating any relative proportion, or with a statement of proportions which is, on its face, ambiguous and vague, it is the duty of the court to declare the patent void, p. 5.

Cited and principle applied in The Incandescent Lamp Patent, 159 U. S. 474, 40 L. 224, 16 S. Ct. 78, reviewing cases, holding patent void where specification indicated a "vegetable, fibrous material" for purpose for which only a particular material was suited; Chemical Rubber Co. v. Raymond Rubber Co., 71 Fed. 183, 39 U. S. App. 11, reviewing cases, holding patent of process for recovery of rubber from rubber waste void for insufficient description; Jenkins v. Walker, 1 Holmes, 123, F. C. 7,275, holding patent of rubber composition void for omission from specifications of proportions of the ingredients. See also good discussion in note to 31 Am. Dec. 206, upon ambiguity in specification.

538

!

}

Patent.- Where, from the nature and character of the ingredients used in a new composition, they are not susceptible of sufficiently exact description, the inventor is not entitled to a patent, р. 5.

Cited in The Incandescent Lamp Patent, 159 U. S. 474, 40 L. 224, 16 S. Ct. 78, holding patent void for insufficient description.

Patents.- Specifications on application for patent of a composition of matter, giving a certain proportion as a general rule, with statement that material possessing certain properties in a different degree from the common require different proportions within certain limits, was not, on its face, sufficiently vague to warrant court in refusing to submit question of sufficiency to a jury and declaring patent void, pp. 5-6.

Cited and principle applied in Consolidated Valve Co. v. Crosby Valve Co., 113 U. S. 177, 28 L. 945, 5 S. Ct. 524, holding description sufficient which laid down general rule but allowed for variations in position of flange.

5 How. 6-7, 12 L. 25, SEWALL v. CHAMBERLAIN.

Appeal and error. --- Where complainant's bill shows a demand susceptible of definite computation, and which will amount to less than $2,000, appeal to Supreme Court will be dismissed, p. 7.

Cited in Ladd v. Tudor, 3 Wood. & M. 329, F. C. 7,975, holding sufficient sum must appear to be in dispute before removal to Federal court permissible.

5 How. 7-10, 12 L. 26, DICK v. RUNNELS.

Depositions.- Under thirtieth section of judiciary act, certificate that no notice was given the adverse party or his attorney, as neither lived within one hundred miles, is sufficient. Parol is admissible to controvert the certificate, p. 9.

Not cited.

5 How. 10-29, 12 L. 27, UNITED STATES v. LAWTON.

Spanish grants. - Under acts requiring courts to determine questions relative to Florida land titles, they were required to find the "locality, extent and boundaries" of the grant before an effective decree could be made, p. 28.

Cited in United States v. De Rodriguez, 7 Sawy. 636, F. C. 14,950, reviewing cases and legislation, holding court had jurisdiction to review and correct survey.

Spanish grants. - To entitle claimant to confirmation of a Spanish grant such identity must be established as to enable the courts to ascertain with reasonable certainty where the land lies. A grant of six miles square at Dunn's lake upon the river St. John's, was merely a floating warrant of survey, and as it was never followed by survey, it cannot be confirmed, p. 29.

Cited and principle applied in Winter v. United States, Hemp. 384, 386, 388, F. C. 17,895, collecting cases, rejecting claim under indefinite grant for want of survey thereunder; Muse v. Arlington Hotel Co., 68 Fed. 641, holding no title passed to land in Arkansas where grant not followed by survey; Kennedy's Exrs. v. Townsley's Heirs, 16 Ala. 246, holding location and survey necessary to completion of title in donation claimant under act of Congress; Commyns v. Latimer, 2 Fla. 87, collecting cases, holding severance from public domain by survey, necessary to completion of title under indefinite grant; Ledoux v. Black, 5 La. Ann. 513, holding title of United States patentee superior to that of Spanish grantee whose lands not surveyed; Vasquez v. Ewing, 42 Mo. 258, holding arbitrary location by surveyor of no avail to perfect title; Trimble v. Smithers, 1 Tex. 808, holding no title in claimant under amparo not followed by survey.

Distinguished in Vanderslice v. Hanks, 3 Cal. 42, collecting cases, holding survey not necessary to pass title where grant defined specific boundaries and accompanied by diagrams.

5 How. 29-51, 12 L. 36, UNITED STATES V. BOYD.

Where an official bond was prospective in its language no past dereliction of duty could render sureties liable thereon, p. 48.

Cited and followed in United States v. Jones, 77 Fed. 723, holding bondsmen not liable for defalcation occurring before date of bond; State v. Banks, 76 Md. 144, 24 Atl. 417, collecting cases, holding sureties not liable on bond prospective in its language, for principal's past delinquencies; Thomas v. Blake, 126 Mass. 322, reviewing cases, holding action not maintainable against surety on bond for principal's delinquency of prior date; State v. Shackleford, Admrx., 56 Miss. 651, holding sureties on guardian's bond not expressly retrospective not liable for guardian's past defaults; Bissell v. Saxton, 66 N. Y. 60, collecting cases, holding sureties on public officer's bond not liable for defaults committed during prior term. Public lands Official bond. - Receiver's acts in giving credit to himself and others on sale of public lands and entering the amount as received, constituted breach of official duty which rendered his sureties liable and himself liable as defaulter, p. 49.

Public lands. - A register of a Federal land office is expressly prohibited by act of Congress from purchasing public lands within his district in his own name or in name of others for his benefit while in office, p. 49.

Sureties on an official bond being responsible for all public moneys in officer's hands at date thereof and afterwards, but not for

1

what he may falsely admit in his hands in accounts with the government, such accounts are only prima facie evidence against them, p. 50.

Cited and principle applied in Arkansas v. Newton, 33 Ark. 280, 284, reviewing authorities holding treasurer's accounts prima facie evidence against sureties on his official bond; Jenness v. Black Hawk, 2 Colo. 585, holding declarations of principal in official bond only prima facie against sureties; Bissell v. Saxton, 66 N. Y. 61, holding public officer's reports only prima facie evidence against sureties as to amounts on hand; Barry v. Screwmen's Assoc., 67 Tex. 255, 3 S. W. 264, collecting cases, holding report of corporation's treasurer prima facie evidence against sureties to show time of misappropriation; Robertson v. Trigg's Admr., 32 Gratt. 81, holding United States collector's accounts with treasury department by no means conclusive against his bondsmen; Salazar v. Territory, 8 N. Mex. 8, 41 Pac. 532, collecting cases, where sureties on county treasurer's bond not precluded by his report from showing default occurred during former term; Supreme Council, etc. v. Fidelity, etc., Co., 63 Fed. 52, 53, 54, 22 U. S. App. 439, reviewing authorities, hold ing treasurer's admissions in accounts of receipt of moneys at particular times, not conclusive against bondsmen; Mahaska County v. Ingalls, 16 Iowa, 87, collecting cases, holding verbal admissions of treasurer since deceased, against interest, as to state of accounts evidence for sureties; Board of Supervisors v. Bristol, 99 Ν. Υ. 322, 1 N. E. 882, holding treasurer's falsified accounts admissible against his sureties as in themselves constituting violation of duty. Valuable note on this subject in 37 Am. Rep. 235, 236; good discussions in note to 3 Am. St. Rep. 750, and note to 10 Am. St. Rep. 849.

Distinguished in United States v. Girault, 11 How. 30, 13 L. 591, holding bad, pleas that receiver had made returns admitting receipt of money not received.

Official bond. - Where condition of official bond was prospective, fraud in respect to past transactions could not render instrument void in respect to its prospective operation, p. 50.

See on this subject, note to 63 Am. St. Rep. 335, 337.

Evidence. - Secondary proof of contents of a pretended letter of appointment without first accounting for the non-production of the original is inadmissible, p. 50.

Agency. - Before a party can be made responsible for acts and declarations of another, there must be legal evidence of latter's authority to act in the matter, p. 51.

Pleading.- Where court below sustained demurrer to rejoinder, and party, on leave, filed amended rejoinder, the judgment sustaining demurrer cannot be reviewed, the point having been waived by amending, p. 51.

Cited and principle applied in Aurora City v. West, 7 Wall. 92, 19 L. 46, holding pleading over to replication adjudged good on de murrer, waived demurrer; Watkins v. United States, 9 Wall. 762, 19 L. 821, holding pleading over to declaration adjudged good or demurrer, without reservation, waived demurrer; Stanton v. Embrey, 93 U. S. 553, 23 L. 984, collecting cases, holding amending pleading to which demurrer sustained waived any error in judg ment on demurrer; Campbell v. Haverhill, 155 U. S. 612, 39 L. 281, 15 S. Ct. 218, holding exception waived by party not standin thereon but electing to proceed; Ellison v. Allen, 8 Fla. 209, holding going to issue on pleading waived exception to judgment on demurrer; Robinson v. L'Engle, 13 Fla. 497, holding exception to judgment on demurrer waived by amending; Dupuis v. Thompson, 16 Fla. 70, and Johnson v. Pensacola, etc., R. R. Co., 16 Fla. 658, holding exception to judgment on demurrer waived by pleading over; Delaware, etc., R. R. Co. v. Salmon, 39 N. J. L. 301, 23 Am. Rep. 215, holding demurrer waived by withdrawing it on leave after being overruled and pleading; Beall v. Territory, 1 N. Mex. 513, and Overland Dispatch Co. v. Wedeles, 1 N. Mex. 531, holding demurrer abandoned by pleading over; Young v. Martin, 3 Utah, 486, 24 Pac. 910, holding going to trial after demurrer overruled waived error in ruling thereon. Cited also in Chester v. Leonard, 68 Conn. 504, 37 Atl. 398, to point that amendment of complaint waived exceptions to ruling on demurrer.

United States are not liable for costs, p. 51.

Cited and followed in Stanley v. Schwalby, 162 U. S. 272, 40 L. 966, 16 S. Ct. 761, holding judgment for costs against United States erroneous; Marine v. Lyon, 62 Fed. 154, 8 U. S. App. 573, holding costs not recoverable against government in cases appealed from board of general appraisers; Carlisle v. Cooper, 64 Fed. 474, 26 U. S. App. 240, collecting cases, holding costs not recoverable against government under certain statutes in condemnation proceeding; State v. Brewer, 59 Ala. 134, collecting cases, holding State not liable for costs in criminal prosecution under general words of statute giving costs; State v. Taylor, 33 La. Ann. 1272, holding State cannot be compelled to give security for costs; United States v. Stevens, 8 Utah, 4, 28 Pac. 870, holding costs not taxable against government as condition for reinstatement of cause on docket; Noyes v. The State, 46 Wis. 251, 32 Am. Rep. 711, 1 N. W. 1, holding judgment for costs against the State, void.

Cited, arguendo, in United States v. Thompson, 98 U. S. 489, 25 L. 195, holding government not barred by State statute of limitations; United States v. Verdier, 164 U. S. 219, 41 L. 409, 17 S. Ct. 44, holding in action in Court of Claims interest prior to judgment not allowable against government. See also note to 16 Am. Dec. 407.

Distinguished in United States v. Davis, 54 Fed. 153, 12 U. S. App. 47, reviewing authorities, holding costs recoverable against govern

1