Opinion of the Court.

preme Court of the State on this subject in its opinion is as follows:

"Conceding the land in controversy belonged to non-residents and that it was assessed at a greater value than similar land belonging to residents, is the tax title void under the Ordinance of 1787 or the act of Congress admitting the State of Iowa into the Union? We are not prepared to say if such an assessment was objected to at the proper time and manner it could be sustained, but we do not believe, under the facts in this case, the title of the purchaser at the tax sale by reason thereof is void. The authorities cited by counsel for appellant do not go to this extent. Fraud is not alleged or shown, nor is it claimed there was an actual intent to discriminate against non-residents. At most it appears the improved lands of residents were not assessed as high in proportion as the unimproved lands. No discrimination was made between the unimproved lands of residents and non-residents. For aught that appears, the relative value of the improved and unimproved lands was erroneous only. Under such circumstances a correction or abatement should have been applied for as provided for by law. The assessment and levy were not void, and for the correction of the error the remedy provided by law is ample for the complete protection of the tax-payer."

account.

While we do not decide that in no case of a settled purpose to discriminate in the taxation of lands in a county or State against owners residing in another State would such a sale be held void, we do not see in the case before us any reason for holding the tax sale complained of here to be void on that If a tax were levied under a law of the State which required either the assessment, or the rate levied upon that assessment, to be more favorable to the resident owners of the property than those who resided in another State, all assessments and sales under such a statute might possibly be declared to be void. But where the question relates to the action of a single assessor, or of a township or county board of equalization, and does not profess to be carried on with any purpose of making such discrimination, the mere errors in assessment should be corrected by proceedings which the law allows be

Opinion of the Court.

fore such sale or before a deed is finally made. There is no sufficient evidence in this case of any purpose to discriminate against the owner of the lands in controversy, nor of any actual injury to him by the assessment which was made upon his property.

The only discrimination made was between improved and unimproved lands, without regard to the residence of the owners and the accidental circumstance that more improved lands were owned by residents than by non-residents, does not show a violation or a purpose to violate the act of Congress.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Iowa is affirmed.

DREYFUS v. SEARLE.

APPEAL FROM THE

CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.

Argued December 20, 21, 1887.- Decided January 9, 1888.

The claim of letters-patent No. 48,728, granted to John Searle, July 11, 1865, for an "improved process of imparting age to wines," namely, The introducing the heat by steam, or otherwise, to the wine itself, by means of metallic pipes or chambers passing through the casks or vessel, substantially as set forth," is not valid for a process, because no different effect on the wine is produced from that resulting from the old method of applying heat to the wine, and is not valid for the apparatus, because that had before been used in the same way for heating a liquid.

BILL IN EQUITY to restrain infringement of letters-patent. Decree for complainant. Respondent appealed. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. J. Hubley Ashton for appellant.

Mr. A. C. Bradley for appellee. Mr. W. J. Newton was with him on the brief.

MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a suit in equity, brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of California, by Sophia Searle,

Opinion of the Court.

as executrix of the last will and testament of John Searle, deceased, against Benjamin Dreyfus, Emanuel Goldstein, Jacob Frowenfeld, and John J. Weglein, copartners under the firm name of B. Dreyfus & Co., for the infringement of letterspatent of the United States, No. 48,728, granted to John Searle, July 11, 1865, for seventeen years from June 15, 1865, for an "improved process of imparting age to wines." The bill was filed December 21, 1881.

The specification and claim of the patent are in these words:

"Be it known that I, John Searle, of the city and county of San Francisco, State of California, have invented a new and improved process for imparting age to wines and liquors;' and I do hereby declare that the within is a full and exact description of the same.

"The nature of my invention consists in providing a process for shortening the time that is now required for ripening wines and liquors to about one-half the period, without deteriorating their flavor, by the use of steam.

"Madeira, sherry, port, teneriffe, and other wines have been prepared for many years, for imparting age, through the medium of 'estufas,' or large ovens, having flues by which they are heated. These 'estufas' are filled with wines and spirits in casks or pipes, and are kept at a proper heat until the contents of the casks show the desired age through the staves. By this process the heat must necessarily be very great (say 140°), which impairs the flavor of the wine, by imparting to it the taste of the cask, and oftentimes the casks have to be taken out and recoopered before the process can be completed.

"By the use of my process the following advantages are derived:

'1st. There is a great saving of time and fuel, the build ing and air not being heated within as by the old process. "2d. It can be effected in casks of the largest size, thereby insuring uniformity of quality in the wine.

"3d. The process can be carried on in cellar.

any

storehouse or

Opinion of the Court.

"4th. There is no injury to the casks, whereas by the old system they become damaged and require constant repairs.

"5th. The breakage and loss on the liquors is very much reduced, which is sometimes excessive in the 'estufas,' by the falling to pieces of the heated and dried-up casks.

"6th. No bad taste is imparted to the liquors during my process, which is too often the case in the

estufas,' where the wine receives the heat through the sides of the cask.

"To enable others skilled in the art to make use of my improvement, I will proceed to describe my process and its operation. I use casks or tanks (as the case may be) for holding the wine; if casks, they may be placed on end. Through each of these casks or tanks, near the base, I pass an iron or metallic pipe, (copper is preferable,) of about one inch, and open at its end. These pipes connect with a main steam-pipe, and can be closed and the steam shut off, should the heat become too great for the wine, by means of a stop-cock attached to each of the pipes.

"The degree of heat which I use in the operation varies from 100 to 140°.

"The time required to perfect the operation of ripening wine by this process is about six weeks, yet, of course, it will be left to the knowledge and discretion of the keeper of the cellar to determine when the ripening process is completed.

"Having thus described my invention, what I claim and desire to secure by letters-patent is, the introducing the heat by steam, or otherwise, to the wine itself, by means of metallic pipes or chambers passing through the casks or vessel, substantially as set forth."

The answer of the defendants denied that the invention was new or useful, and alleged that it was in public use in San Francisco for more than two years prior to the date of the application by Searle for the patent, by two persons, named Wieland and Voorman.

Issue being joined, proofs were taken on both sides, and, on the 22d of May, 1883, the Circuit Court entered an interlocutory decree, adjudging the patent to be valid, that the defendants had infringed upon it by treating and ageing wine by the

Opinion of the Court.

process described and claimed in it, and ordering a reference to a master to take and report an account of profits from the infringement. He reported the amount of profits to have been $3249.60. Both parties excepted to the report, but all the exceptions were overruled, and a final decree was entered in August, 1884, awarding a recovery to the plaintiff of $3249.60, with interest from the date of the entry of the interlocutory decree, May 22, 1883, and costs. From this decree the defendants have appealed to this court.

It is stated in the specification of the patent, that age had been imparted to wines, for many years, by placing them in casks, in estufas, or large ovens, and keeping up a proper heat therein, on the outside of the casks, until the contents of the casks showed the desired age. The application of artificial heat to impart age to wines was, therefore, old. The heat was applied to the wine from the outside. The new process claimed in the patent is to introduce the heat by causing steam, or other heating medium, to pass through metallic pipes or chambers placed on the inside of the cask, and within the body of the wine in the cask. This is called in the patent a new process; but, so far as the action or effect of heat on the wine is concerned, in respect to ripening it or imparting to it what is called "age," or any other quality imparted to it by beat, the effect or result is the same as that produced by imparting the heat to the wine from the heated air, in the oldfashioned estufa or oven. It is shown by the evidence that the application of the heat to the wine from the inside of the cask has no different effect upon it from that of the heat as applied by the old process, and that no chemical or other change is produced in the wine different from that produced by the old process.

There was no novelty in the process as a patentable process. Whatever novelty there could have been must have consisted wholly in the apparatus used for introducing the heat to the inside of the body of the wine. But it appears by the evidence that the apparatus, as a means of imparting heat from it to the body of the liquid inside of which it was placed, was not new. Wieland testifies that for twenty-five years prior to