sels navigating East river and Long Island sound are not vessels " used in river or inland navigation" within act limiting liability of shipowners; Steamboat Belfast v. Boon & Co., 41 Ala. 63, 71, States have the right to declare a statutory lien in favor of shipper for loss of goods on vessel navigating an interior river above tide water. Cited, Jackson v. Steamboat Magnolia, 20, How. 314, 322, 329, 338, 342, 15 L. 917, 921, 924, 927, 929, dissenting opinions, majority holding, by virtue of judiciary act of 1789, admiralty jurisdiction of United States courts extends to cases of collision upon navigable waters above tide water; Insurance Co. v. Dunham, 11 Wall. 27, 20 L. 98, arguendo, in historical discussion of the subject; Scott's Case, 1 Abb. 339, F. C. 12,522, discussion of maritime liens; People v. Tyler, 7 Mich. 241, 242, 270, 271, 279, 290, admiralty jurisdiction does not extend to lakes and navigable waters; The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 584, 22 L. 665, arguendo, in dissenting opinion, in elaborate discussion of the admiralty jurisdiction of United States courts. Also in note, 32 Am. Dec. 66, 62 Am. Dec. 239, note.

Distinguished, United States v. Wilson, 3 Blatchf. 437, F. С. 16,731, holding United States courts have no jurisdiction to try criminal offenses not committed on the high seas; The Daniel Ball, 1 Brown, 197, F. C. 3,564. This rule, confining admiralty jurisdiction to the sea and tide waters, has been abrogated as evidenced by the following citing cases: The Belfast, 7 Wall. 639, 19 L. 270, affirming that the doctrine that admiralty and maritime jurisdiction extends to all navigable waters, has been definitely settled; The Mary Washington, 1 Abb. 6, Chase, 129, F. C. 9,229, a contract of affreightment to be performed wholly between ports within same State, is within admiralty jurisdiction of United States courts; The Barge Leonard, 3 Ben. 266, 270, F. C. 8,256, libel to recover damages on contract to carry cargo between cities in same State, one of admiralty jurisdiction; The Sarah Jane, 1 Low. 205, F. C. 12,349, admiralty has jurisdiction of libel for wages against a vessel plying on navigable waters entirely within one State.

Admiralty. - The exclusive jurisdiction in admiralty cases was conferred on the national government, as closely connected with the grant of commercial power, p. 392.

Cited in McAllister v. The Steamboat Sam Kirkman, 1 Bond, 382, F. C. 8,658, holding no State legislation can supersede or annul a lien given by the maritime law; The Tug Montauk v. Walker, 47 III. 338, under State statute, State courts may enforce contract for supplies furnished domestic vessel in home port, by proceeding in

rem.

Marine torts. - By the laws of the United States, gross and reckless negligence on the part of master or crew, is a fraud and a tort on the shippers, and consequent loss of life, a crime on the part of those guilty of negligence, per Catron, J., p. 393.

Cited in The City of Norwalk, 55 Fed. 110, where State law gave damages for death by negligent collision on navigable waters, action is for maritime tort, and District Court has jurisdiction.

Admiralty jurisdiction. - The civil, admiralty, and maritime jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution, was the restricted jurisdiction known to be that of the English admiralty, limited in matters of contract (seamen's wages excepted), to things agreed upon and to be performed upon the sea, and cases of hypothecation, and in civil torts to injuries occurring on the same theatre, and excluded as to the one and the other from contracts made or torts committed, within the body of a country, per Daniel, J., dissenting, pp. 409, 410.

Cited with approval in the following dissenting opinions, per Daniel, J.: Newton v. Stebbins, 10 How. 608, 13 L. 560, agreeing with majority in disposition of the case, but denying the admiralty jurisdiction of District Court over vessels in collision on the Hudson river; The Propeller Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh, 12 How. 464, 13 L. 1067, dissenting from so much of opinion as claims admiralty jurisdiction in case arising out of collision on the lakes and navigable waters; The Steamboat New World v. King, 16 How. 478, 14 L. 1023, majority holding libel for injuries sustained on steamboat plying the Sacramento river, within the admiralty jurisdiction of Federal courts; Jackson v. The Steamboat Magnolia, 20 How. 308, 15 L. 915, majority holding, by virtue of the judiciary act of 1789, admiralty jurisdiction of United States courts extends to cases of collision upon navigable waters, above the ebb and flow of the tide. Cited in Poag v. The McDonald, 19 Fed. Cas. 904, arguendo.

Common carriers of travellers are bound to the preservation of the accustomed baggage of the traveller, but are not responsible for other articles, secretly transported upon his vehicle, per Daniel, J., dissenting, p. 417.

Cited in Smith v. Railroad, 44 N. H. 330, holding carrier liable only as bailee, without reward for loss of bundles of merchandise carried by passenger.

Marine tort does not differ from any other tort in its nature or Incidents, except that it must be committed on the high seas, per Woodbury, J., p. 431.

Cited in Thurber v. The Sloop Fannie, 8 Ben. 435, F. C. 14,014, holding the forcible taking possession of vessel a maritime tort, and gave no title.

Miscellaneous.- Cited in Waring v. Clarke, 5 How. 452, 12 L. 232 arguendo; Express Cases, 117 U. S. 18, 29 L. 799, 6 S. Ct. 550, in historical discussion of growth of express business in United States; The Main v. Williams, 152 U. S. 128, 38 L. 383, 14 S. Ct. 487, and The Maimie, 5 Fed. 818, as leading to limited liability act of 1851; Whittenton Mfg. Co. v. M. & O. R. P. Co., 21 Fed. 900, dissenting opinion of Daniels, J. Cited generally, The Gilbert Knapp, 37 Fed. 211, arguendo; Bremena v. Card, 38 Fed. 145, not in point; Hockett v. State, 105 Ind. 259, 55 Am. Rep. 207, 5 N. E. 183, a State may regulate charges of telephone companies. Cited generally in Lamb v. Camden & A. R. R. & T. Co., 46 N. Y. 279, 7 Am. Rep. 330, in dissenting opinion; Alsop v. Southern Express Co., 104 N. C. 289, 10 S. E. 300, 6 L. R. A. 275, discussing the duty of carriers to receive goods offered; Braithwaite v. Jordan, 5 N. Dak. 219, 65 N. W. 708, 31 L. R. A. 248, without particular application.

6 How. 437-486, 12 L. 505, HOGG v. EMERSON.

Appeal and error. --- Where writ of error is allowed in patent cases, all the questions of law which arose at the trial must be brought up, p. 477.

Cited in S. C., 11 How. 603, 13 L. 832, the omitted questions havIng been brought up by certiorari.

Patents.- In England, the patent is first issued, and contains no reference to the specification, except a stipulation that one shall, in the required time, be filed, giving a more minute description of the matter patented, p. 479.

Cited in American D. R. Boring Co. v. Sheldon, 17 Blatchf. 304, F. C. 297, holding English patent not complete until filing of full specification.

Patents.- Specification constitutes part of patent, and they must be construed together, pp. 482, 483.

Cited and approved in Forbes v. Barstow Stove Co., 2 Cliff. 392, F. C. 4,923, where it was objected that the description of the invention was not clearly set forth; Hoffheins v. Brandt, 12 Fed. Cas. 294, determining originality and usefulness of invention by inspection of specifications, drawings and model; King v. Gedney, 14 Fed. Cas. 529, patent for certain improvements in washing machinery construed in connection with the whole specification and drawIngs; Tinker v. Wilber Eureka M. & R. Mfg. Co., 1 Fed. 139, drawings may be inspected in order to explain ambiguous or doubtful specification; Burke v. Partridge, 58 N. H. 351, nature and scope of patented invention ascertained from entire instrument, including schedule, specifications and explanatory drawings; authorities collected. Approved, arguendo, Le Roy v. Tatham, 14 How. 179, 14 L. 377, in dissenting opinion.

Patents. - As a general rule, letters issued for more than one patent, are void, p. 483.

Cited and approved in Campbell Printing-Press & Mfg. Co. v. Duplex Printing-Press Co., 86 Fed. 321, arguendo.

Patents.- The specifications must distinguish the invention from things before known, so as to enable any one skilled in the art or science with which it is connected, to make, compound and use the same, p. 484.

Cited in Caverly v. Deere, 52 Fed. 764, where value of machine depended upon angle of cutters, an omission to state it in specifications renders patent invalid.

Patents.- A patent for "certain improvements in the steam engine and in the mode of propelling therewith, either vessels on the water or carriages on the land," may be united in one instrument, and is sufficiently clear and certain, pp. 484, 485.

Cited and relied upon in Maxheimer v. Meyer, 20 Blatchf. 20, 9 Fed. 462, the joining of two inventions for improvement in bird cage in same patent, does not render it void; The Fire Extinguisher Case, 21 Fed. 44, patent of invention for extinguishing fires, and of portable and stationary apparatus for applying process, is valid; Wilkins Shoe-Button Fastner Co. v. Webb, 89 Fed. 983, 986, where two machines which co-operate to accomplish a single result, are included in same patent, wrongful use of either is an infringement.

A patentee may recover damages for infringement for the time intervening between destruction of patent office in 1836, and the restoration of the records in 1837, p. 485.

Patents are to be construed most favorably to the patentee, p.

486.

6 How. 486-507, 12 L. 526, HOUSTON v. CITY BANK OF NEW ORLEANS.

Bankruptcy. - The United States District Court has power to decree sale of mortgaged property of bankrupt, and if proceeds are insufficient to discharge eldest mortgage, still the purchaser holds property free from incumbrances arising from junior mortgages, p. 506.

Cited and principle followed in Giveen v. Smith, 1 Hask. 366, F. C. 5,467, holding sale by assignee discharged incumbrance without notice to holder who was present at sale and had ample opportunity to apply for redress; Foster v. Ames, 1 Low. 316, 317, 2 Bank. Reg. 148, F. C. 4,965, District Court has power to order mortgaged chattels sold free from incumbrance - mortgagee's lien is transferred to proceeds of sale; In re Kahley, 2 Biss. 389, 4 Bank. Reg. 125, F. C. 7,593, to same effect, where mortgage was upon fixtures and goods; Davis v. Anderson, 6 Bank. Reg. 159, 7 Fed. Cas. 108, sale of debtor's land by virtue of execution issued and levied after filing of petition in bankruptcy, does not pass title as against assignee; Sutherland v. L. S. D. C. R. R. & I. Co., 9 Bank. Reg. 310, 23 Fed. Cas. 464, it is within the discretion of the court to sell free from or subject to prior incumbrances, authorities collected; In re Rhodes, 20 Fed. Cas. 653, District Court has power to order sale, free from incumbrances, of real estate bound by liens under State laws; In re Pittelkow, 92 Fed. 903, ordering sales made without unnecessary delay; Markson v. Haney, 47 Ind. 35, foreclosure proceedings brought in State court after adjudication of bankruptcy against mortgagor by United States court, will be stayed upon motion; Clifton v. Foster, 103 Mass. 236, 4 Am. Rep. 542, ordering petition to enforce mechanic's lien to stand continued to await result of bankruptcy proceedings in United States courts.

Cited, arguendo, in Marston v. Stickney, 55 N. H. 385, unless assignee of bankrupt shall proceed in United States courts to ascertain lien and provide for its satisfaction, creditor may enforce the same by suit in State court; Chemung Canal Bank v. Judson, 8 N. Y. 265, under bankrupt law of 1841, District Courts have jurisdiction of all matters and proceedings arising under it.

Distinguished in Ray v. Norseworthy, 23 Wall. 134, 23 L. 118, affirming S. C., 25 La. Ann. 601, holding sale made without notice to mortgagee did not discharge his lien; Galbraith v. Fisher, 22 Pa. St. 415, sale by assignee not made by virtue of any decree of District Court, by which bankrupt was discharged, does not discharge property from a judgment lien.

Miscellaneous.- Cited in St. Paul & S. C. R. R. Co. v. Covell, 2 Dak. Ter. 521, 11 N. W. 108, but without particular application.

6 How. 507-550, 12 L. 535, WEST RIVER BRIDGE CO. v. DIX. Eminent domain. - A bridge, held by an incorporated company under State charter, may be condemned and taken as part of a public road, upon compensation made, under the laws of that State, and the charter, though a contract, does not prevent such action, pp. 529, 539.

This is a great leading case upon the doctrine of eminent domain, as evidenced by the following cases, which cite and apply tnis principle: East Hartford v. Hartford Bridge Co., 10 How. 536, 537, 13 L. 529, where a ferry right was held during the pleasure of the general assembly, no contract was violated by its abolition; Richmond, etc., R. R. Co. v. Louisa. R. R. Co., 13 How. 83, 14 L. 60, legislative authorization to railroad company to cross track of another incorporated company, did not violate contract with the latter; Greenwood v. Freight Co., 105 U. S. 22, 26 L. 965, where legislature had power to repeal statute conferring charter, it might authorize a new company to take franchises and property of the old company, upon making compensation; Long Island Water Supply Co. v. Brooklyn, 166 U. S. 691, 41 L. 1167, 17 S. Ct. 721, water system may be acquired by condemnation proceedings; Annistor R. R. Co. v. Jacksonville, etc., R. R. Co., 82 Ala. 300, 2 So. 711, a railroad company claiming right of way through a mountain gap, cannot enjoin another company seeking to condemn a right of way; Chicago, etc., R. R. Co. v. Town of Lake, 71 Ill. 339, a town may