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.
UNITED STATES V. CENTRAL PAOIFIO B. 00.
UNITED STATES V. CENTRAL PACIFIO
Court, D. California. 1.
April 17, 1882.)
PATENT FOR LAND-VACATING-INDIBPENSABLE PARTIES.
The owners of the land, in a suit to vacate a patent, are indispensable parties to the bill, and when the patentee has conveyed the land a bill against him will be dismissed for want of necessary parties.
MEXICAN GRANT-WITHIN ExTERIOR BOUNDARIES.
Where a claim was filed for confirmatiom of a Mexican grant of 11 leagues, within exterior boundaries containing three times that quantity of land, and the surveyor general, in extending the public surveys, found the grant within the sphere of his operations, and surveyed it in advance of confirmation, in pursnance of the statute of 1852, (10 St. at Large 90,) reserving nearly double the quantity necessary to satisfy the grant, and the survey was acquiesced in by the claimant, the land surveyed into sections, platted, and returned to the land-office the surplus as public lands, which surplus was thereafter treated as public lands by the government, opened to pre-emption, offered for public sale by proclamation of the president, and afterwards opened to private entry and homesteads, patents being issued therefor for all such purposes, and to satisfy a congressional grant to the Central Pacific Railroad Company, it seems that such surplus will be regarded as emancipated from the claim of the Mexican grant, and that the patents issued therefor in the usual course of business of the la,nd-office will be regarded as valid. 3. Ex PARTE SURVEY. An ex parte survey of the exterior boundaries of a rejected Mexican grant, made by direction of the commissioner of the land-office, after the lands embraced in the supposed grant have been officially surveyed and disposed of as public lands, is not admissible as evidence on the part of the government in a suit to vacate a patent.
In Equity. Wayne McVeagh, Atty. Gen.; and Philip Teare, U. S. Atty.t for complainant. Tully R. Wise, for defendant. SAWYER, C. J. This is a bill in equity to vacate and annul five several patents issued by the United States to the defendant, under the act of congress granting land to aid in the construction of the Central Pacific Railroad, for something over 14,000 acres of land in the aggregate, on the ground that the patents were issued by mistake for lands not embraced in the grant by congress. The patents respectively bear date April 9, 1870, April 3, 1872, February 28, 1874, November 23, 1875, and June 6, 1879. The lands are all odd sections, and lie within the limits of the grant desig. nated in the act of congress. On September 22, 1852, Andreas Pico presented to the board of land commissioners for settling titles to v.1l,no.5-29