ence of the partnership, and any contract between themselves and the plaintiffs. To entitle a party to removal under this clause there must exist in the suit a separate and distinct canse of action,in respect to which all the necessary parties on one side are citizens of different states from those on another. Nor is it removable under the act of 1866, (Rev. St. § 639, c1. 2,) because this was repealed by the act of 1875. The cases cited in the opinion were: The Removal Cases, 100 U. S. 457; Blake v. :McKim, 103 U. S. 336; Barney v. Latham, Id.205. NOTE. :And see, as to repeal of the act of 1866, Clark v. Chicago,M.& St. P. R. Co. anro, 355i Sweet" ·:Adm'r v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. CO. rd.; Wormser v.Dahlman, 16 Blatchf. 319; Railroad Co. v. Mis. slsslppi, 102 U. S. 141; McLean v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. Id. 309; Girardy v. Moore, a Woods, 397; Osgood v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. 6 Biss. 330; Chicago v. Gage, Id. 467; Carraher v. Brennan, 7Bl.s. 497; Arapahoe Co. v. Kansas & P. R. Co.4 Dill. 277; Burch v. Davenport, etc., R. Co. 46 Iowa, 449; Wormser v. Kline, 67 How. Pro 2S6; New Jersey Zinc Co. v. Trotter, 23 Int. Rev. Rec. 410; Ex parte Grim. baJJ, 8 Cent. L. J. 151; Cook v. Ford, 4Cent. L. J. 560.
BENNECKE v. CONNECTIOUT MUT. LIFE INS. Co. 14 ChI. Leg. News, 267 A suit on a policy of life insurance was commenced in the circuit court of McLean county on the eighteenth day of April, 1878, by a declaration on the policy of the insurance. Defendant filed a plea of the general issue only. On the petition of the defendant the case was transferred to the circuit court of the United States for the southern: district of Illinois. It was admitted by the insurance company that there was no other defence in the case than what arose from the forfeiture of the policy by reason of the fact that Bennecke had gone south of the thirty-second parallel of latitude, between the first of July and the first of November, without the consent of the company previously given in writing; and on the facts of the case it occurred as a question whether the forfeiture had been waived by the company, on which question the jUdges were opposed, and the presiding judge being of opinion that the forfeiture had not been waived, judgment was entered for the defendant. Whereupon, and on motion of the defendant, by its counsel, it was ordered that the state of the pleadings, and the facts found, and the qU,estion on which the judges differed, be certified ac.cording to the request of the defendant, and the law in that case made and provided, to this court to be finally decided. The cause has accordingly been brought to this court by certificate of division of opinion and writ of error, and decided at the October term, 1881, Mr. Justice Woods delivering the opinion of the court affirming the judgment of the circuit court to the effect: A waiver of a stipulation in an agreement, to be effectual, must not only be made intentionally, but with knowledge of the circumstances. So, where neither the agents of the company nor the company itself knew that the party named in the policy was dead at the time of the application for a permit to travel and live in districts prohibited by the policy, it is not a waiver of the forfeiture for so doing without permission of the company. Further, that the ratification of an act of an agent, previously unauthorized, to bind the principal, must be with a full knowledge of all the material facts. The cases cited in the opinion were: OWings v. Hull, 9 Pet. 607; Diehl v,
NOTES OF DECISIONS.
Insurance Co. 58 Pa. St. 452; Bevin v. Connecticut Mut. L. Ins. Co. 23 Conn. 244; Viall v. Genesee Mut. Ins. Co. 10 Barb. 440; Earl Dal;nley v. L. C. & D. R. Co. Law Rep. 2 H. L. 43; Combs v. Scott, 12 Allen, 496. Collision between Sailing-Vessels. 'raE ANNIE LINDSLEY '0. BROWN. This action was brought to recover damages sustained by the schooner Sallie Smith in a collision with the brig Annie Lindsley, which resulted in the sinking and total loss of the Smith and hel; cargo. The owners of the schooner brought suit against the brig in: the district court, and the district court having rendered a decree in their favor, the claimants of the brig appealed the case to the circuit court, by which the decree of the district court was affinned. The claimants then appealed t()the supreme court of the United States, which rendered judgment on December 5,1881, affirming the decree, the opinion being given by Mr. Justiqe Woods. The findings of factby the circuit court are conclusive, and the court cannot look into the e,vidence, which is not part of the record of this court. The act of February 16, 1875, (1 Sup. to the Rev. St. la5,) provides that the circuit court, in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction on the instance side of the court, shall find the facts and the conclusions of law, and state them separately. Where the circuit court found the facts to be that a brig and a schooner were approaching each other nearly end on, the latter heading west by south, the former about east-north-east; and the wind east of south, and fresh; and on the discovery of the brig the schooner ported, but the brig, on the discovery of the schooner, starboarded and then ported, but too late to change the course given to her by starboarding: Held, that the brig was in fault for violating the sixteenth rule of navigation, which requires both vessels, when approaching end on, to put their helms to port, so that each may pass on the port side, (Rev. St. § 4233,) and that the negligence of a lookout, which has no part in bringing about the collision, cannot be regarded. Benedict, Taft & Benedict, for appellant. Butler, Stillman & Hubbard and Wilhelmus Mynderse, for appellees. The cases cited in the opinion were: The Abbotsford, 98 U. 8. 440; The Benefactor, 102 U. S. 204; The Agriatic, 103 U. S. 730; to the point of practice. And The Farragut, 10 Wall. 334; The Fannie, 11 Wall. 238; as to the neglect of the lookout. Infringement of Patent-Measure of Damages. GOULDS MANUF'G CO. '0. COWING, 21 O. G. 1277. This was a patent case taken up to the supreme court of the United States, on appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of New York. The validity of the patent and its infringement were not disputed, and the only questions raised on appeal relate to the amount of damages the appellant is entitled to recover for the infringement of his patent. Decision was rendered on March 13, 1882, reversing the decree of the circuit court, and the opinion delivered by Mr. Chief .Justice Waite: Where a patent is for one ot the constituent parts of a machine, and not for the whole machine, in estimating the amount of damages for its infringement it does not necessarily follow that