NOTES OF DECISIONS.
for, defects in the approaches to the bridge, but whether the city by its action had treated the embankment a8 a street, or an extension of a street, is a question of fact for the jury. P. Phillips, W. A. Maury, and C. C. McCrae, for plaintiffs in error. C. V. Meredith and G. K. Macon. for defendant in error.
Practice. HITCHCOCK 'D. BUCHANAN and another, U. S. Sup. Ct., Oct. Term, 1881. Error to the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of Illinois. The decision was rendered by the supreme court of the United States on April 10, 1882. Mr. Justice Gray delivered the opinion of the Court. Where a bill of exchange was manifestly a draft of a company and not of the individuals by whose hands it is subscribed, and it p.urports to be made at the office of the IJompany, and directs the drawees to charge the amount thereof to the account of the company, of which the ,signers describe themselves as president and secretary, will not bind the agents personally. Thomas G. Allen, for plaintiff in error. Charles W. Thomas,. for defendants in error. Cases cited: Sayre v. Nichols, 7 Cal. 535: Carpenter v. Farnsworth, 106 79 Ill. 248. Mass. 561: Dillon ". Bernard, 21 Wall. 430: Binz v. Duties on' Imports. HENRY 'D. FIELD and others, U. S. Sup. Ct., Oct. Term, 1881. Error to the circuit court of the United States for the western district of Illinois. The decision was rendered on March 20, 1882, in the supreme court of the United States. Mr. Justice Field delivered the opinion of the court, approving the judgment of the circuit court. "White linen torchon laces and insertings" are "thread lace and insertings," and are liable for duties only to the amount prescribed for articles of that kind: and are not classed as a manufacture of flax, or of which flax is the component material or chief value, " not otherwise provided for." S. F. Phillips, Solicitor General, for plaintiff in error. John H. Thompson and Edward S. Isham, for defendants in error. Practice-Bill of Exceptions-Internal Revenue. UNITED STATES 'D. RINDSKOPF and others, U. S. Sup. Ct., Oct. Term, 1881. Error to the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Wisconsin. The decision in this case was rendered in the supreme court of the United States on April 24, 1882. Mr. Justice Field delivered the opinJon of the court, reversing the jUdgment, and remanding the case for a new trial. Only such parts of the charge of the court should be given as would point the exceptions: and, so, inserting the entire evidence in the record is objec,tionable practice. The assessment of the commissioner of internal revenue is only prima fame evidence of the amount due as taxes upon distilled spirits. If not impeached, it is sufficient to justify a recovery j but every material fact upon which liability is asserted is open to contestation. An instruction that the assessment is to be taken as an entirety, and that the government is enti-
tIed to recover the exact amount assessed, or not any sum, is erroneous, unless an erroneous rate has been adopted by the officer, or where it is impossible to separate from the property assessed the part which is exempt from the tax, or where its validity depends upon the jurisdiction of the commissioner. S. F. Phillips, Solicitor General, for plaintiff in error. J. B. C. Cottrell, L. Abraham, and C. E. Mayer, for defendants in error. Case cited as to practice: Lincoln v. Laflin, 7 Wall. 137. Patents-Novelty and Utility. LEHNBENTER V.HOLTHAUS, U. S. Sup. Ct., Oct. Term, 1881. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Missouri: This case was decided in the supreme court of the United States on March 6, 1882. Mr. Justice Woods delivered the opinion of the court, reversing the decision of the circuit court, and remanding the cause for further proceed. ing. A patent, as against a party proved to have infringed it, is p1'ima factlJ evidence of both novelty and utility. Obstruction to Navigation. ST. LOUIS V. THE KNAPP Co., U. S.· Sup. Ct., Oct. Term, 1881. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Missouri. The case was decided in the supreme court on March 4, 1882. Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court, reversing the judgment, and remanding the case for further proceedings according to law. A public navigable stream must remain free and unobstructed, and no pri. vate individual has a right to place permanent structures within the navigable channel; and if a proposed run-way, when completed, proves to be a material obstruction to the free navigation of a river, or a special injury to the rights of others, it may be condemned and removed as a nuisance. Where the complaint avers that defendant proposes to do the act, and the averment is accompanied by the general charge that .. the driving of piles in the bed of the river and the construction of the run-way will not only cause a diversion of the river from its natural course, but will throw it east of its natural course, from along the river bank north and south of the proposed run-way and piling," it is a sufficiently certain and minute allegation of facts, and not a case of a threatened nuisance only, and is not demurrable on the ground of uncertainty. In most cases general certainty is sufficient in pleadings in equity, and where the pleading distinctly apprises the defendant of the precise case the pleading is sufficient. Leverett Bell, for appellant. J. M. & C. He Kram, for appellee.