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
the profits are to be confined to what can be made by the manufacture and sale of the patented part separately. If, without the improvement, a machine adapted to the same uses can be made which will be valuable in the market and salable, then the inquiry is, what was the advantage gained by the use of the patellted improvement jl But if the improvement is required to adapt the machine to a particular use, and there is no other way to the public of supplying the demand for that use, then the infringer has, by his infringement, secured the advantage of a market he would not otherwise have had, and the fruits of his advantage are the entire profits he has made in that market. W. F. Cogswell. for appellant. Elisha Foote, for appellees. Federal Question. DUBUCLET v. STATE OF LOUISIANA. 2 Morr. Trans. 559. A suit begun in a state court of Louisiana to try the title of Dubuclet, plaintUf in error, to the office of treasurer of state, the duties of which he was performing under a commission from the governor of the state. A petition was filed by the plaintiff in error for the removal of the suit to the circuit court of the United States for the district of Louisiana, and was granted by the state court, but was remanded by the circuit court on the ground that it was not in law removable, when it was taken up on error to the supreme court of the United States at the October term, 1880. Mr. Chief Justice Waite, in rendering the decision, held, that in a suit to declare the right of the candidate declared elected to office, wherein it was alleged that many voters were prevented from voting by bribery, and in violation of the civil rights act, and that the poll was, on this account, rejected by the returning board in accordance to law and their sworn duty, which rejection elected him, that such a question arose under the state law and not .. under the constitution and laws of the United States," and that the case was not, therefore, removable under the act of March 3, 1875. John Ray, for plaintiff in error. Conway Robinson, for defendant in error.
see Wt"in,' F6TTl/ 00. V.
4" ..t. R. 00. ant.. p. :l81 and Dote.