1l0TES OF DECISIONS.
'rhe Anna Maria, 2 Wheat. 327; The Amiable NancY,3 Wheat. 546; Smith v. CoudrY,l How. 28; Williamson v. Barrett, 13 How. 101 ; The Nuestra Signora de los Dolores, 1 Dods. 297; The Carl Johan,l Hagg. 113; The Giro. lamo, 3 Hagg. 186; The Zollverein, Swabey, 96; Cope v. Doherty, 4 Kay & J. 367; S. C.4 JUl'. (N. S.) 451; S. C. on App. Id. 391, 699; The Gen. 1. S. C. Co. v. Schurmanns, 1 Johns. & H. 193; The Wild Ranger,l Lush. 553; 9 JUl'. (N. S.) 134.
see n, MlJr14 IItt" Ell:ea&.lh, IInl', 520.
Insurance on Life of Another. WARNOOK 'D. DAVIS and others, 4 Morr. Traus. 93. Error to the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of Ohio. This was an action brought by an administrator of a deceased person who had taken out a policy of insurance en his life, against the Scioto Trust Association of Portsmouth, Ohio. At the time of taking out the policy he entered into an agreement with the trust association whereby it was agreed that he should assign the policy to the association, rellerving for his disposition one-tenth of the amount; the association to keep up and maintain the insurance at their expense. The case was tried by the court without a jUry. On the trial the plaintiff gave in evidence the deposition of the receiver of the insurance company, who produced from papers in his custody the policy of insurance, the agreement and mentioned, the proofs presented of the death of the insured, and the receipt by the trust association for the insurance money. No other testimony was offered. :Th.e court thereupon found for the defendants, to which finding plaintiff excepted. Judgment being rendered in favor of defendants the case was brought to the supreme court for review, and the decision rendered on the sixth of March, 1882, Mr. Justice Field delivering the opinion of the court: An insurable interest in the life of another is such an interest, arising from the relations of the party obtaining the insurance, either as creditor of or surety for the assured, or from ties of blood or marriage,as will justify·a reasonable expectation of advantage or benefit from the continuance of his life. An insurance policy on the life of another, by one not having such an interest, is a wager policy, and void. An assignment of a policy to a party not having an insurable interest,whether of the whole, or a portion merely, of the insurance money, is valid only to the extent of loans or advances made on account of it, or the premiums paid on its security; but so far as it attempts to assign any surplus, is void as a direct insurancewouid be, and is equally objectionable as a wager policy. If, under color of such assignment, the assignee collects the money due on such a policy, the assignor or his representatives may recover the amount so collected, less any loans or advances, and the rule of par delictum does not apply to such a case. F. B. Foraker, for plaintiff in error. A. C. 'rhompson. for defendants in error. The cases cited in the opinion were: St. John v. Amer. Mul;. L. Ins. Co. 13 N. Y. 31; Valton v. National Loan Fund Life Assu. Co. 20 N. Y. 32; v. Ashley, 3 Simons, 149; Cammack v. Lewis, 15 Wall. 643.
Patents-Reissue-Expanded Claim. MATTHEWS v. THE BOSTON MACHINE CO. 21 O. G. 349. This case was brought up on appeal to the United States supreme court from the circuit court of the United States, for the district of Massachusetts, and was decided March 27, 1882. Mr. Justice Bradley delivered the opinion of the court affirming the decree of the circuit court. Where the original patent shows upon its face that certain broad claims were not made, the patentees, if they are the inventors of such subject-matter, when apprised that it is not claimed in the patent, should use due diligence in surrendering the patent and having the mistake corrected. Fourteen years is too long a period of delay. In this instance the reissue is held to be not merely for a broader claim made many years after the original was granted, but for a different invention. By suppressing the description of certain parts of the device, the reissued patent is made to cover, by implication, an invention described and claimed in a subsequent patent. When, in view of the state of the art, the patentee's claim must be construed to be for the specific arrangement of devices invented by him, the defendants do not infringe unless their devices are in the same specified form. Geo. L. Roberts and Geo. Harding, for appellants. Causten Brown, for appellees. Directing Verdict-Civil Action. STEWARD v. TOWN OF LANSING. This was a suit brought to recover for interest coupons on town bonds issued in aid of railroads. At the trial, after the testimony on both sides was in, the court instructed the jury to find a verdict for the defendant, which was done, and judgment entered accordingly. This ruling furnished the principal ground of error assigned. The case was brought up on error to the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of New York, and a decision rendered on March 6, 1882, affirming the judgment of the circuit court. The opinion was delivered by Mr. Chief Justice Waite. It is not error in a court to instruct a jury to find a certain verdict, if it is satisfied that, conceding all the inferences which a jury might draw from the testimony, the evidence would not be sutlicient to support a ,::ontrary verdict. James R. Cox, for plaintiff in error. Francis Kernan, for defendant in error. Cases cited in the opinion were: Pleasants Y. Faut. 22 Wall. 122; Railroad Co. v. Traloff, 100 U. S. 26; OscallJ'on v. Arms Co. 103 U. S. 26.