taxes on the same to the state, the plaintiff in error insists that the shares* of stock held by him in the company were exempted from taxation by the clauses of the act of April 5, 1859, which we have quoted. This contention cannot be sustained. The law taxes the shares of the plaintiff in error unless they are "expressly exempted. The burden is on him to show an express exemption. There is no exemption unless the payment by the Western Union Telegraph Company of the tax imposed on its property situated in the state, and which the findings of facts made by the circuit court show was but a small part of its whole property, relieves from taxation its shares held by a resident of the state. It may be conceded that generally the capital or the capital stock of a corporation is its property. Bank Tax Case, 2 Wall. 200; National Bank v. Com. 9 Wall. 353. But the shares held by the stockholders are distinct from the capital stock of the corporation, and the taxation of both is not necessarily double taxation. Farrington v. Tennessee, 95 U. S. 679; Dewing v. Perdicaries, 96 U. S. 193; Bradley v. Bauder, 36 Ohio St. 28. The claim, therefore, of the plaintiff in error is to the exemption of a certain class of his property from taxation. But it has been repeatedly held by this court that an exemption from taxation must be expressed in clear and unmistakable terms and cannot be shown by doubtful or ambiguous language. Providence Bank v. Billings, 4 Pet. 514; Gilfillan v. Union Canal Co. 109 U. S. 401; S. C. 3 Sup. CT. REP. 304.

The case, therefore, depends upon the construction of the statute. The supreme court of Ohio has decided that shares owned by a resident of Ohio in a foreign corporation, none of whose capital was taxed in Ohio, but all of it in the state where the corporation had its home, was taxable in Ohio. Bradley v. Bauder, 36 Ohio St. 28. The controversy on this part of the case is, therefore, reduced to the question whether the legislature has clearly and unmistakably expressed the purpose in the act under consideration to exempt from taxation shares in a foreign corporation owned by residents of Ohio, when but a small part of the property of the company was subject to taxation in Ohio. The exemption from taxation of investments in stocks, provided by the statute, applies only to shares of those corporations which are required to return their capital and property for taxation in the state. Jones v. Davis, 35 Ohio St. 474. This clearly means those corporations which are required to return all, or substantially all, their capital and property. There is no rule of interpretation by which the statute can be held to apply to corporations who list only a small part of their property for taxation in Ohio. If the legislature had intended to allow an exemption in such a case, it could and would have expressed that purpose by words not admitting of doubt. As the shares of the plaintiff in error in the Western Union Telegraph Company were not only not expressly, but not even by fair implication, exempted from taxation, we are of opinion that the tax complained of was authorized by law.

Lastly, complaint is made that the circuit court erred in rendering judgment for the penalty and interest upon the additional taxes assessed against the plaintiff in error. The judgment of the circuit court was for $10,727.65, which is less than the taxes demanded in the petition without either interest or penalty. The findings of fact do not show the rate of taxation for any one of the four years for which the taxes were recovered, and it is impossible for us to say that anything was included in the judgment but the simple taxes. It is true that the court said in its conclusion of law that judgment would be rendered for the tax, with the damages prescribed by statute, and interest and costs. But we have not been referred to any statute which gives damages in this class of cases, and there is nothing in the findings to show that anything was actually included in the judgment, either for damages or interest. The amount of the judgment was based upon the assessment of the property of the plaintiff in error, made by the auditor, a sworn public officer. Therefore the burden is on the plaintiff in error to show by the record that the court

*340

*339

*523

(114 U. S. 338)

rendered judgment for an amount not authorized by law. This he has failed to do. Under the circumstances, we must presume that the judgment of the circuit court, in respect to its amount as well as in other respects, was right, unless the contrary is shown. Ventress v. Smith, 10 Pet. 161; Townsend v. Jemison, 7 How. 714; The Potomac, 2 Black, 581.

We find no error in the record. Judgment affirmed.

MOORE v. GREENHOW, Treasurer, etc.

(May 4, 1885.)

VIRGINIA BONDS-WRIT OF MANDAMUS AS A REMEDY.

The writ of mandamus caunot be invoked to compel the receiving of coupons of Virginia bonds in payment of debts due the state. `See Antoni v. Greenhow, 107 U. S. 769; S. C. 2 SUP. CT. REP. 91.

In Error to the Supreme Court of Appeals of the state of Virginia.

Wm. L. Royall, D. H. Chamberlain, Wm. M. Evarts, and Wager Swayne, for plaintiff in error. A. H. Garland, R. T. Merrick, and F. S. Blair, Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

MATTHEWS, J. The plaintiff in error filed his petition on April 26, 1884, in the circuit court of the city of Richmond, against Greenhow, the defendant, as treasurer of the city of Richmond, praying for a rule nisi, commanding the said Greenhow to show cause why a peremptory mandamus should not be awarded to the plaintiff, commanding the said treasurer to issue to the petitioner a certificate in writing, stating that he had made the deposit required by law in payment of his license tax, as a sample merchant in said city. The petition set forth that the tender made in payment of this deposit consisted of coupons cut from bonds issued by the state of Virginia, and, by contract with the state therein declared, receivable in payment of all taxes, debts, demands, and dues to the state, and that the tender was refused by the treasurer, and a certificate of deposit withheld, because the 112th section of an act of the general assembly of Virginia, approved March 15, 1884, for the purpose of assessing taxes on persons, property, and incomes and licenses, requires that all license taxes shall be paid in gold or silver coin, United States treasury notes, or national bank-notes, and not in coupons; and another act of the general assembly of the state, approved March 7, 1884, to regulate the granting of licenses, likewise forbids the payment of license taxes in coupons. The alternative writ prayed for was denied by the circuit court of the city of Richmond, and, on a petition for a writ of error, its judgment dismissing the petition therefor was affirmed by the supreme court of appeals of the state. This being a case in which, by mandamus, the plaintiff in error seeks to compel the officers of the state of Virginia specifically to receive coupons instead of money in payment of license taxes, it comes within the exact terms of the decision of a majority of this court in Antoni v. Greenhow, 107 U. S. 769, S. C. 2 SUP. CT. REP. 91, according to which the plaintiff in error is remitted to the remedy provided by the act of January 14, 1882, entitled "An act to prevent frauds upon the commonwealth and the holders of her securities in the collection and disbursement of revenues."

The judgment of the supreme court of appeals of Virginia is therefore affirmed.

FIELD and HARLAN, JJ., adhere to the views expressed in their dissenting opinions in Antoni v. Greenhow, but they agree that the principles announced by the majority in that case, if applied to the present case, require an affirmance of the judgment below.

(114 U. S. 63)

SARGENT v. HALL SAFE & LOCK Co. and others.

(March 30, 1885.)

1. PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-SARGENT TIME-LOCK-INFRINGEMENT.

In letters patent No. 186,369, granted to James Sargent, January 16, 1877, for improvements in time-locks, the combination-lock forming a member of the combinations claimed by the two claims of the patent, is one which has a bolt or bearing that turns on an axis or revolves, as distinguished from a sliding-bolt, and those claims are not infringed by a structure in which the combination-lock has not a turning or revolving bolt.

2. SAME-CLAIM 2 CONSTRUED.

Claim 2 of the patent requires that the tumblers of the combination-lock and its spindle shall be free to rotate while the bolt-work is held in its locked position, by the bolt or bearing of the combination-lock.

3. SAME COMBINATIONS OF MECHANISM.

In patents for combinations of mechanism, limitations and provisos imposed by the inventor, especially such as were introduced into an application after it had been persistently rejected, must be strictly construed against the inventor and in favor of the public, and looked upon as in the nature of disclaimers.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio.

Edmund Wetmore and George Ticknor Curtis, for appellant. E. N. Dickerson and W. C. Cochran, for appellees.

BLATCHFORD, J. This is a suit in equity, brought in March, 1877, in the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of Ohio, by James Sargent, the appellant, against the Hall Safe & Lock Company and others, the appellees, for the infringement of letters patent No. 186,369, granted to Sargent, January 16, 1877, for improvements in time-locks. It was afterwards consolidated, as of November, 1879, with another suit in equity, brought in July, 1876, in the same court, by the same plaintiff against the same defendants, for the infringement of reissued letters patent No. 6,787, granted to Sargent, December 7, 1875, for improvements in time-locks, on the surrender of original letters patent No. 121,782, granted to Stephen W. Hollen, December 12, 1871. The circuit court heard the case on pleadings and proofs and dismissed the bill. The plaintiff has appealed, but no claim is made in this court to recover on the Hollen reissue. The specification and claims of No. 186,369 are as follows:

"Be it known that I, James Sargent, of Rochester, in the county of Monroe, and state of New York, have invented certain new and useful improvements in locks for safe and vault doors, of which the following is a specification:

"This invention relates to certain improvements in locks for safe and vault doors, its object being to construct a time-movement in such a manner as to have it guard, and operate in conjunction with, a combination-lock, so as to render said combination-lock, when locked, inoperative and incapable of being unlocked until the arrival of the appointed hour, at which time the timemechanism will liberate or cease its guarding action on the combination-lock, and admit of said lock being operated and unlocked by the person having knowledge of the combination upon which said lock is set, so as to enable the bolt-work of the safe or vault door to be retracted and the door opened.

"My invention consists in combining a time-mechanism with a combination-lock, and adapting the same to operate in connection with the bolt-work of a safe or vault door, the time-mechanism being constructed to act in conjunction with, and guard, dog, or render inoperative, the aforesaid combination-lock, when locked, the said combination-lock having a bolt or bearing specially constructed and arranged, so that, when in one position, it will rest upon or receive the pressure of the bolt-work of the door when the latter

is thrown out and the lock locked, and thus prevent the retraction of the bolt-work. This arrangement retains the bolt-work in a locked condition during the hours appointed for it to remain locked, and prevents the lock from being unlocked by any one having legitimate or surreptitious knowledge of the combination upon which the lock is set, until the arrival of the appointed hour, when the time-mechanism will cease its dogging or guarding action upon said combination-lock, and admit of said lock being operated by those in possession of the combination, so as to enable them to place the bolt or bearing of the lock in such position as to enable the retraction of the bolt-work, whereby the safe or vault door can be opened.

"The invention further consists in a certain combination, substantially as hereinafter set forth, that is to say, a union consisting of a combination-lock, a time-movement, and a yoke lever or connection, adapted to be placed upon a safe or vault door, to operate in conjunction with the bolt-work thereon, said yoke lever or connection being constructed and located in such respect

to the combination-lock as to render the unlocking of the same absolutely impossible, when locked, and so remain locked until the arrival of the appointed or predeterminate time, at which time the said yoke lever or connection, through the action of the time-movement, is caused to cease its guarding or dogging action upon the combination-lock, at which time, or any time after during the time the time-mechanism has ceased its dogging or guarding action, the said lock can be unlocked by the person in possession of the proper combination upon which the lock is set, the peculiarity and novelty of this union being, that, when the said combination-lock with its time-mechanism, is arranged upon a safe or vault door, to operate in conjunction with the boltwork thereon, and all locked, the tumblers or combination-wheels of said lock, and the spindle of the same, together with its usual indicator, are all left free to be moved or rotated without exerting any unlocking action or strain whatever upon the mechanism composing the combination-lock, or the delicate mechanism composing the time-movement.

"In the drawings, figure 1 represents a portion of a safe or vault door, illustrating therein a bolt-work, and a combined time-mechanism and combi

nation-lock, with covers removed, the bolt-work being thrown out into the jamb of the door, and the combination-lock locked and guarded by the time*movement. Fig. 2 is a detail view, illustrating a yoke lever or connection adapted to connect with the dog, angle-bar, or fence of the combination-lock. Fig. 3 represents a portion of a safe or vault door, having thereon a boltwork, and a combined time-mechanism and combination-lock, the combination-lock being unlocked and the bolt-work retracted.

"Referring to the drawings, the letter A designates the case of a combina-* tion-lock, the lock-works of which may be of any of the well-known forms now in use, provided the same is supplied with a lock-bolt, or a bearing, constructed and arranged so as to connect with, or receive the pressure of the boltwork located on a safe or vault door, when said lock-bolt or bearing and the bolt-work are placed in a position for locking the door.

"The combination-lock illustrated in the drawings is one known as 'Sargent's Automatic Bank-Lock,' upon which letters patent were granted Au

gust 28, 1866, reissued January 2, 1872. Said combination-lock is shown as applied upon a safe or vault door, B, upon which is arranged a bolt-work, consisting of the usual bolt-supporting bars, C, bolts, D, carrying-bar, E, having a tongue-piece, F, said carrying-bar serving as a medium for projecting or retracting the bolts into and out of the sockets, a, constructed in the jamb of the safe or vault, for the purpose of locking or unlocking the door, as shown in Figs. 1 and 3. The bolt-work has the requisite projecting or retracting motion imparted to it from the outside of the door, when opened or closed, through the medium of the usual knob, b, and the spindle, c, which spindle passes through the door, and connects with the carrying-bar by any suitable fastening, such as a slot, d, pin, e, and suitable fastening-nut. The lock-bolt or bearing of the combination-lock may be of a circular, segmental, or other desired form, provided said lock-bolt is arranged and adjusted so as to turn upon a suitable axis or bearing, and is so constructed that, in one position, it will prevent the retraction of the bolt-work, so as to retain the safe or vault door locked, while, in another position, it will admit of the bolt-work being retracted for the purpose of allowing the safe or vault door to be opened.