« ForrigeFortsett »
57. The profits allowed in equity for the injury a patentee has sustained by the infringement of his process cannot bear interest, except from the time the master's report is submitted showing the amount due.-Id.
48,728. Improved process of imparting age to wines,
49. Claim 1 of reissued letters patent No. | ented process, in computing the gains and 9,803, granted July 12, 1881, to George W. Heyl, profits made by the infringers of this process. for an improvement in devices for inserting -Id. metallic staples, is the "combination of a stationary staple-support or anvil and a sliding staple-guide, with a reciprocating slotted or recessed hammer, operating to insert a staple through layers of stock to be united, and simultaneously bend over to projecting ends;' and claim 2 is "in a device for inserting metallic staples, in combination of the stapleguide, anvil, spring, and reciprocating driver, provided with a knob." Held not to be infringed by a device constructed under letters patent No. 218,227, granted August 5, 1879, and No. 260,365, granted July 4, 1882, to William J. Brown, for a device having a stationary recessed clincher, and a movable detached stapleinserting tool.-Crawford v. Heysinger, 399. 50. The first claim of letters patent No. 140,250, issued June 24, 1873, to James D. Cusenbary and James A. Mars, for an improvement in ore-stamp feeders, which describes the feed-118,517. Improvement in bung-bushings of cylinder as having its outer surface formed into chambers or depressions, separated from 119,212. Improvement in post-office boxes, 967 each other by longitudinal partitions, is not 140,250. Improvement in ore-stamp feedinfringed by a device for feeding ore-stamps which has a smooth feed-cylinder not formed into chambers. - Hendy v. Golden State & Miners' Iron-Works, 1275.
51,085. Coal stoves,
264 101, 676 1292
75,344. Improvement in hydrants, 110,222. Improvement in hydraulic mining apparatus,
148,264. Railroad frogs,
51. The adaptation of a honey frame for the
53. Upon a bill in equity by the owner against infringers of letters patent for a pro cess, plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of gains and profits that defendants have made by the use of his process, although plaintiff had established license fees for the use of his patent. Tilghman v. Proctor, 894.
54. The mere fact that another than plaintiff has an interest in the license fees and recoveries under the patent sued on, does not amount to such legal ownership in the patent as will defeat plaintiff's recovery of all gains and profits that defendants have made by infringement of the patent.-Id.
55. An erroneous decision against a patentee in a suit against one infringer is no ground for not holding other infringers to account to the patentee in another suit for all profits, gains, and savings which defendants have made from the use of his invention during the whole period of this infringement, including the time prior to the reversal of such decision. -Id.
56. Where the difference in the proportion of fatty acids used in the patented process and the old process, which the infringers might have used, does not affect the commercial value of the product, nothing should be deducted for a loss of fatty acids by the pat
195,603. Device for inserting metallic staples,
218,227. Device for fixing staples,
122-124, 131 231,199. Machine for making buckle-lev122-124, 127, 128, 131 243,674. Improvement in sectional honey frames,
260,365. Device for fixing staples,
281,640. Improvement in fire-proof safes,
283,136. Improvement in bending angle irons,
2. Act of congress of July 1, 1864, classify. ing postmasters and fixing their salaries, provides (section 2) that the postmaster general shall review once in two years, and as much oftener as he may deem expedient, and readjust the salary of any office, etc. By the act of June 12, 1866, § 8, the act of 1864 was amended by adding the following proviso to its second section: "That when the quarterly returns of any postmaster of the third, fourth, or fifth class show that the salary allowed is ten per centum less than it would be on the basis of commissions under the act of 1854, fixing compensation, then the postmaster general shall review and readjust under the provisions of said [second] section."
Statute of limitations, see Limitation of Ac- Held, that these enactments did not impose tions, 3.
In an action against a carrier for the loss of a hand-bag dropped out of a car window, the circuit court sitting in Louisiana sustained an exception to the petition, on the ground that it set forth no cause of action, and ordered it dismissed, unless the plaintiff should amend within five days. The original petition alleged that the hand-bag and contents, for the loss of which the defendant railroad was sued, were held and kept by the plaintiff in his immediate possession, and the amended petition, when duly filed, alleged that the defendant received them as his luggage. Held, that the amendment "altered the substance of the demand," within the meaning of Code Prac. La. art. 419, and it was within the power of the court, in sustaining an exception thereto and dismissing the action, to modify the order allowing the plaintiff to file an amended petition so as to provide that that petition should have effect only as an addition to the original petition.-Henderson v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 60.
upon the postmaster general a legal duty to
3. An indictment under Rev. St. U. S. § 5480, making it a criminal offense for any person having devised a scheme or artifice to defraud other persons by inciting them to open communication with him through the postoffice, to place any letter in, or receive any letter from, any post-office, is insufficient when the offense is charged in general language, without disclosing the particulars of the scheme or artifice.-United States v. Hess, 571.
4. Such an omission is matter of substance, and not of form, and cannot be aided or cured by the verdict.-Id.
5. Rev. St. U. S. § 5480, provides that the indictment for using the mails to defraud may charge offenses to the number of three when committed in the same six calendar months, 1. Rev. St. U. S. § 3962, provides that "the but the court shall give a single sentence. postmaster general may make deductions from offenses committed in the same six calendar The petitioner was indicted for three distinct the pay of [mail] contractors, for failures to months, and was convicted and sentenced. perform service according to contract. He may deduct the price of the trip in all cases convicted, and sentenced for three other of At the same term of court he was indicted, where the trip is not performed; and not ex-fenses under the same statute committed in ceeding three times the price if the failure be the same six months. On a writ of habeas occasioned by the fault of the contractor or carrier." Held, that this section, so far as ap- committed in the same six months may be corpus, held, that three separate offenses plicable to railroad companies, was not re-joined for the purposes of trial, and when pealed by act Cong. March 3, 1879, § 5, providing that the postmaster general shall, for every failure of a railroad company to deliver mail on schedule time, deduct not less than one-half the price of the trip, and, where the trip is not performed, not less than the price of one trip, and not exceeding, in either case, the price of three trips, the latter section merely making an exception to the provisions of section 3962 as to railroad companies, and upon repeal of that section of the act of 1879 the provisions of section 3962 are again in force.-Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. United States, 1194.
joined there is a single sentence, but there is to make a single continuous offense, and punnothing in the statute to indicate an intention ishable as such, of what without it would have been several distinct offenses, each complete in itself.-Ex parte Henry, 142.
Of sale, see Mortgages, 8.
1. In 1832 the law of Coahuila and Texas did not require a letter power of attorney, to take
possession of and sell land granted from the | fore presenting it as a claim.-United Trust government, to be executed with the same Co. v. Morrison, 1004.
solemnities as the act of sale itself, defects in the execution going only to the proof necessary to authenticate the instrument in legal proceedings.-Williams v. Conger, 933.
2. From the recital, in a power of attorney to sell land, "In the city of Mexico, January 10, 1837, * * personally appeared * * a citizen, " it will be presumed, in the absence of proof, that the grantor was a citizen of Mexico, having the right to dispose of land in Texas at the time.-Id.
Practice in Civil Cases.
See Admiralty; Appeal; Costs; Error,
In case of death, see Insurance, 6.
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.
See Negotiable Instruments.
Patent as a defense, see Ejectment, 3.
1. By an act of congress of March 3, 1871, certain surveyed lands were granted to a railway company, provided its line should be complete within five years, and, if the company should fail to complete the road within the time limited, congress might secure its speedy completion. Act of congress of July 31, 1876, provides that before any land granted by the United States to any railway company shall be conveyed, the cost of survey shall be paid by the party in interest. The line was not completed within the time stipulated. Held, that congress had a right to impose a new condition upon its grant, and that the company was not entitled to recover the money paid by it for surveys under protest; and that the right of congress to impose such condition was not affected by the authority given it to complete the road.-New Orleans P. Ry. Co. v United States, 417.·
1871, nothing was said as to payment of the 2. In an act granting land to a railroad in costs of survey, although incurred at the time. Held, that that fact did not bring the grantee within the clause of the act of July 31, 1876, saving from its operation such grantees as should be exempted by law from the payment
of such costs.-Id.
road Company under its land grant, for any sections lying easterly of range 6 E., within the outside boundaries of the Moquelamos
3. Patents issued to the Central Pacific Rail
Plaintiff resided and did business in B., and, having large quantities of sugar entered at New York, employed defendant to attend to such entries, and to make sale of the sugar. Improper duties were charged by the government officials on these imports, and correspondence was exchanged by the parties, in which plaintiff told defendant that, if the government charged illegal duties, he must place the matter in the hands of some competent attorney, and advised defendant to employ a certain attorney, unless he knew of a better one, which he promised to do. The improper duties having been charged, plaintiff wrote defendant to appeal from the "government assessing duties by tests." Defend-grant, are valid, there being enough land lyant assumed the responsibility of taking the ing west of range 7 to satisfy the floating appeal, but asked to await the decision in an- grant of 11 square leagues.—United States v. other suit named. Afterwards plaintiff inMcLaughlin, 1177. structed defendant to allow none of the cases to escape his attention, and bring actions as fast as the causes arose, and it became necessary. Held, that the correspondence showed an agreement to attend to the suits by defendant, and that, by allowing the time within which suits might be brought to recover improper duties to elapse without entering them he became liable to plaintiff for the damages.--Bowerman v. Rogers, 986.
PRINCIPAL AND SURETY.
Liability of surety.
One who becomes surety on a bond given to protect from sale the mortgaged property of a railroad, in a foreclosure suit directing all claims to be presented, need not pay the judg ment recovered against him on the bond be
torney general on behalf of the United States 4. The bill in this case was filed by the atto vacate a patent granted to the Central Pacific Railroad Company for lands lying east of range 6, within the claimed limits of the Moquelamos grant; the ground of relief being that all the lands within the exterior limits of that grant were reserved lands. Held, that the lands in question were not reserved lands, and that the bill should be dismissed.-Id.
5. A city council passed an ordinance relinquishing to plaintiff and other persons in possession of public land within the corporate limits the city's claim to such land, and then, by a later ordinance, took part of the land in plaintiff's possession for a public square. Congress afterwards granted the land within the corporate limits to the city for the uses and purposes specified in these two ordinances. Held, that plaintiff's title being based upon the grant, which referred to both ordinances, he acquired through the first ordinance no vested right to the land taken by the second.
-Clark v. City and County of San Francisco, 659.*
6. The donation act of Oregon requires, for the completion of the settler's right to a patent, besides a residence upon and cultivation of the lands for a certain time, that he notify the surveyor general of the precise land claimed. A settler, a married man, having died before such notification, held, that a notice by his widow was sufficient.-Brazee v. Schofield, 604.
Titles derived from states.
7. Act N. J. March 31, 1869, (Laws N. J. 1869, c. 386,) authorizing certain companies to reclaim and erect wharves and other improvements in front of any lands owned by them adjoining Kill von Kull, or any other tidewaters of the state, and, when so reclaimed and improved, to hold the same as owners thereof, and providing that said companies should file with the secretary of state a map and description of the lands under water in front of the upland referred to in the law, applies not only to the water front of land owned by the companies above the original high-water mark, but also to land owned by them adjoining tide-water, lying below such high-water mark, which had been previously granted, for purposes of reclamation, to an improvement company, which had conveyed to the united companies.-City of Hoboken v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 643.
can officials in California terminated on the 7th of July, 1846. No alcalde appointed or elected after that date was empowered to give judicial possession of land granted by the previous government.-More v. Steinbach,
in West Florida rejected the titles of plaintiffs' grantor on the grounds that there was no evidence of the required cultivation, nor that the lands had been surveyed prior to January 24, 1818, nor that they had emanated from the king of Spain prior to that date. Held, that such grounds were not included in the act of June 22, 1860, § 3, which provides that the commissioners shall not recommend any claim previously rejected as being fraudulent, or any claim which had been twice rejected.-Id.'
13. In an action to confirm the titles to certain land grants from the king of Spain, the original testimonios were given in evidence, the signatures were identified, the transla tions were certified, and the genuineness of the titles was not disputed before the commissioners of 1824, appointed to try the titles to lands in West Florida, nor in the court below. Held, that this was sufficient evidence of their genuineness.-Id.
14. Petitioners were entitled to certain lands in Florida, owned by them under a Spanish land grant. Held, that if the United States government had sold the lands, in whole or in part, petitioners would be entitled to scrip for other public lands of equal extent to those sold.-Id.
15. Act Cong. March 3, 1851,"to ascertain and settle the private land claims in the state of Grants-Authority to make. California," (9 St. 631,) created a board of com8. The authority and jurisdiction of Mexi-missioners to which all persons, claiming land 8. The authority and jurisdiction of Mexi- under any right or title derived from the Spanish or Mexican governments, were reand determination within two years from its quired to present their claims for examination date, with such documentary evidence and testimony of witnesses as they relied on to support their claims, and provided that if on examination they were found by the board, and by the courts of the United States, to which an appeal could be taken, to be valid, the claims should be confirmed and surveyed, and patents therefor issued to the claimants; but that all lands, the claims to which were should be considered as a part of the public not presented to the board within that period,
Delivery of possession.
9. In order that a perfect title to land might vest under a grant from the Mexican government a delivery of possession by its officers was necessary. The proceeding was termed a judicial delivery of possession.-Id.
Spanish grants-Perfection of
10. The acts required to perfect the titles to two land grants from the king of Spain were rpeformed prior to May, 1818. The treaty by which Florida was ceded to the United States was signed February 22, 1819, and the United States act of June 22, 1860, made the date of cession the point from which to test the validity of titles to land grants in Florida. Held, that the titles in question were completed within the time required by the act of 1860.United States v. De Morant, 189.
11. Petitioners' ancestor owned a quarter interest in lands granted by the king of Spain. They petitioned to have their title confirmed, not only for themselves, but also for and on behalf of the other part owners. Held, that under the act of June 22, 1860, for the relief of parties claiming under such grants, a part owner and the heirs of a part owner could have relief.-Id.
12. The commissioners appointed to determine the validity of titles to two land grants
domain of the United States. Held, that the provision requiring the presentation of their claims was obligatory on claimants, and they were bound by the judgment of the board, if confirmed by the courts of the United States on appeal, and by the survey and location of the claim by the officers of the land department following the final decree of confirmation; and that a United States patent, issued after the claim was surveyed and located, is conclusive, both as to the vity of the title of the claimant and the extent and boundaries of his claim, as against all parties not claiming by superior title, such as would enable them to contest the action of the government respecting the property.-More v. Steinbach, 1007.
16. Whether the act of congress, February 18, 1871, ceding to the state of Ohio lands in the Virginia military district in that state "remaining unsurveyed, " did or did not pass title to lands covered by a previous survey, invalid on account of the excess in the quantity of
land embraced, the fourth section of the act of | and, if that quantity lying together was left May 27, 1880, passed for the purpose of con- to satisfy the grant, the railroad company struing the act of February 18, 1871, ratified would be entitled to patents for the odd secand confirmed the title to such lands sold by tions of the remainder.-Id. the Ohio Agricultural and Mechanical College, the grantee of the state of Ohio, to a purchaser for a valuable consideration.-Coan v. Flagg,
23. In the case of a floating Mexican grant, the government retained the right of locating the quantity granted in such part of the larger tract described as it saw fit, and the government of the United States succeeded to the same right; hence the government might dispose of any specific tracts within the exterior limits of the grant, leaving a sufficient quan
17. Grants of land made by a government in territory over which it exercises political jurisdiction de facto, but which does not right-tity to satisfy the float.-Id. fully belong to it, are invalid as against the Surveys. government to which the territory rightfully belongs.-Coffee v. Groover, 1.
24. A survey embracing 1,682 acres, on an trict made on a warrant for 500 acres, is, by entry of lands in the Virginia military disreason of such excess, fraudulent and void, and does not vest the owner of the warrant, or his assignee, with an equitable title to the lands surveyed, as against the United States, so as to entitle him to call for a patent.-Coan v. Flagg, 47.
18. Where a disputed boundary between two states is adjusted and settled, grants previously made by either state of lands claimed by it, and over which it exercised political jurisdiction, but which, on the adjustment of the boundary, are found to be within the territory of the other state, are void, unless confirmed by the latter state; and such confirmation cannot affect the titles of the same lands previ- that a survey, on which a party bases his 25. For the purpose of showing the date ously granted by the latter state itself.-Id. 19. The boundary between Georgia and claim to title to public lands, was filed in the Florida was long in dispute,-Georgia claim- general land-office, copies of official letters ing to a line called "Watson's Line," and ex- claiming title under the warrant and survey, written by the commissioner to the party then ercising political jurisdiction, and making reciting the facts, which copies were sworn grants of land to that line; while Florida claimed to a line called "McNeil's Line," fur-land-office, and acquainted with the facts, he to by a witness who was a clerk in the general ther north than Watson's. Upon running the having, as such clerk, written the originals true line, as finally agreed upon by the two for the commissioner, by whom they were states, it was found to be further north than McNeil's line. Held, (1) that the grant made signed, are competent.-Id. by Georgia of the land in dispute, which was south of McNeil's line, though made while Georgia exercised the powers of government de facto over the territory there, was nevertheless void; (2) that the confirmation by Florida of the grants made by Georgia, did not invalidate or disturb the grant of the land in dispute previously made by itself.-Id. 20. The Mexican grant called the "Moquelamos Grant," described as "bounded on the east by the adjacent sierra," has its eastern limit at the point where the foot-hills of the sierra begin to rise above the plain, near the range line between ranges 7 and 8.-United States v. McLauglin, 1177.*
26. In Pennsylvania, after the lapse of 21 years from the return of a survey, the presumption is that the warrant was located office; but this presumption is not conclusive, as returned by the surveyor to the landand is rebutted by evidence of the existence of marked lines and monuments, and other of marked lines and monuments, and other facts tending to show that the actual location distances; and, the fact that younger surveys was different from the official courses and of fixed lines call for the older, is admissible to aid the jury in discovering the actual location of the survey.-Clement v. Packer, 907. of their titles to two Spanish land grants in 27. Plaintiffs petitioned for the confirmation Florida, and put in evidence, without objection, a plat of the two grants, laid down in connection with the sections and subsections
21. Mexican grants were of three kinds: (1) Grants by specific boundaries, where the donee is entitled to the entire tract; (2) grants of quantity within a larger tract de- of the government surveys, certified as corscribed by outside boundaries, where the do-rect by a civil engineer and surveyor. Held, that it was unnecessary to annex a sworn nee is entitled to the quantity specified and no more; (3) grants of a certain place or copy of the government suveys to the petirancho by name, where the donee is entitled tion.-United States v. De Morant, 189. to the whole place or rancho. The second kind-grants of quantity in a larger tractare properly floats, and do not attach to any specific land until located by authority of the government. The Moquelamos grant was of this kind.-Id.
22. Only the quantity actually granted, onehalf the Mexican floating grants, was reserved during the examination of the validity of the grant; the remainder being still part of the public domain, and, if within the boundaries of a land grant made in aid of a railroad, such land grant would take effect, except as to the quantity of land or float actually granted,
28. The land grants in question were surveyed in the spring of 1818. The treaty by 1818, as the date by which to test the acts of which Florida was ceded fixed January 22, surveying necessary to the validity of grants surveying necessary to the validity of grants from the king of Spain. But the United cession, February 22, 1819, as the proper date. States act of June 22, 1860, fixed the date of Held, that these grants were not void because not surveyed before January 22, 1818.-Id. Canceling patents.
29. It was alleged in a bill of equity to cancel patents that the lands in controversy were not subject to settlement and sale under