110 Mass. 241; Priestley v. Fowler, 3 Mees. & W. 1; Patterson v. Wallace, 1 Macq. H. L. Cas. 748; Bartonshill Coal Co. v. Reid, 3 Macq. H. L. Cas. 288; Bartollshill Coal Co.v. McGuire, Id. 307.; Clarke v. Holmes, 6 Hurl. & N. 349; S. C. 937; Murray v. Phillips, 35 Law Times, 477; Conroy v. Vulcan Iron Works, 62 Mo. 38; Patterson v. P. & C. Ry. Co. 76 Pa. St. 389; Le Clair v. Railroad Co. 20 Minn. 9; Brabbits v.'Ry. Co. 38 Mo. 289; Holmes v. Worthington,2 Fast. & F. 535; Railroad Co. v. Gladman, 15 Wall. 401; Indianapolis & St. L. R. Co. v. Horst, 93 U. S. 291.
Patents for Inventions-Assignment. GOTTFRIED 'tI. MILLER, 3 Morr. Trans. 644. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Wisconsin. The case was decided in the supreme court of the United States on January 23, 1882. Mr. Justice Woods delivered the opinion of the court affirming the decision of the circuit court. Assignments of patents for Inventions are not required to be under seal. The statute regulating their transfer simply provides that" every patent or any interest therein shall be assiWlable in law by an instrument in Writing, and as a corporation may bind itself by a contract not under its corporate seal when the law does not r'equlre its contract to be evidenced by a sealed instrument, the absence of the corporate seal from the contract of assignment does not render it invalid or void. When the assignment is executed by an agent of the corporation, he should, in the body of the contract, name the corporation as the contracting party, and sign as its agent or officer. The attachment of stock in the hands of a stockholder does not encumber the property of the company nor prevent the assignment by the company. , Ephraim Banning and Thomas A. Hanning, for appellant. E. H. Abbott, for appellee. The cases cited in the opinion were: That a corporation may bind itself by contract not under its corporate seal: Bank of Columbia v. Patterson, 7 Cranch, 299; Fleckner v. U. S. Bank, 8 Wheat. 338; Andover T. Cor. v.Hay, 7 Mass. 102; Dunn v. St. Andrew's Church, 14 Johns. 118; Kennedy v. BaIt. Ins. Co. 3 Harr. & J. 367; Stanley v. Hotel Corp. 13 Me. 31. As to parol conmade by agent: Fanning v. Gregoire, 16 How. 524; Fleckner v. Bank, 8'}Vheat. 338. Assignments by corporation in general: Matt v. Hicks, 1 Cow. 513; Bowen v. Norris. 2 Taunt. 374; Shelton v. Darling, 2 Conn. 435: Brockway v. Allen, 17 Wend. 40. As to the effect of attachment of stock of a stockholder: Morgan v. Railroad Co. 1 Woods, 15; Bradley v. Holdsworth, 3 Mees. & W. 334; Arnold v.Ruggles, 1 R. I. 165. Oontract-Enforcing Performance. BROWN et al. v. SLEE et al. 2 Morr. Trans. 772. This was an appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Iowa, in a suit in equity to enforce the stipulations in certain contracts wherein the plaintiffs purchased from his executors the interest of the estate of deceased in the undivided partnership property owned by the plaintiffs and deceased during his life-time, for $100,000, payable. $25,000 in cash, $50,000 in notes, and $25,000 in land and acertain county judgment, unless the executors concluded not t() keep the land and the judgment, in which event he was, at the end of five
NOTEB OP DEOIBIONS.
years. to purchase them back and pay in money the $25.000 for which rne, were takt'n. the executors crediting him with what had, in the mean time, been collected on the judgment, with interest at the rate of 7 per centum pel annum. The case was decided at the October term, 1880, and the decision delivered by Mr. Chief Justice Waite. affirming the decree of the lower court On the day fixed for mutual stipulations in a contract to be performed, eithel party may require the other to perform, and neither can insist on the default of the other 80 long as he is himself bebind in his own performance. The plaintiff could not demand a deed until he tendered the money, and the executors could not require the money until they had offered a deed. The failure ot both parties to perform on the day was equivalent to a waiver by each of the default of the other, and either, by tendering performance of his stipulation within a reasonable time, may enforce the performance of the contract against the other. William M. Randolph, G. Cole, and G. G. Wright, for appellant&. Nourse & Kaufman and Seymour Dexter, for appellees. NOT& see /Judl411 ·· H/1,l/fJI/1,rtl. /1,n'" Ma.
Bemoval of Causes-State Laws Enforced.
OUAcmTA COUNTY.,. WOLCOTT. Enor to the clrcuU court of the eastern district of Arkansas. This case was brought up on a certificate of division between the judges of the circuit court of the eastern district of. Arkansas. The circuit judge, from the facts of the case, was of opinion that as plaintiff was a citizen of another state, and had brought the present suit before the time limited for bringing in county warrants for cancellation under the order of the county court, they were not barred under the statute;, while the district judge was of opinion that because of the failure to comply with that order the suit could not be maintained. The case was decided in the supreme court of the United States in the October term, 1880. Mr. Justice Miller delivered the opinion of the court reversing the judgment of the circuit court. The statute of the state of Arkansas ,of January 6, 1857, 'authorizing the county court to make an order calling in for cancellation certain county warrants, and barring all which are not brought in by a certain date, is a valid law, as it merely intended to expedite and make safe the keeping of the county warrants, and did not intend, by ¢ving the county court authority to make such an order, to deprive the federal court of its jurisdiction. and such oruer is valid and binding on the plaintiff in this case, even in a suit in the federal oourt after removalof the cause. F. W. Compton and A. II. Garland, for plaintiff in error. U. M. Rose, for defendant in error.
NOTE, See Son.,iOy
Keeley. ""''' p. 678, and note.
Contract-Vitiated by Fraud. WARDELL '0. PAO. R. Co. Appeal from the elrcutt Murt of the United States for the district "i' This case was decided at the Oc!ober term, 1880. by the supreme court of the United States. Mr. Justice Field delivered the opinion of the court affirming the decree of the circuit court. Arrangements entered into bi the directors of a corporation to secure'