HOTES OF DEOISIOHS.
or by scouring with acid and sand, would be an undue expansion of the original patent. In 1876 Thomas James obtained a patent for an improvement in the manufacture of tinned sheet copper, under which the defendants now make the article which is said to be an infringement. After the sheet is tinned, the discoloration is removed by the use of diluted acid, or by scrubbing with acid and sand. The sheet is then washed in pure water, and after it is dry is cold rolled between bright chilled rolls, two sheets having been placed together, with their tinned sur· faces in By this process the discoloration is removed by the application of acid, and then the surface is polished by the chilled rolls. By the O'Neil process the surface is polished and made glossy by the rolls, and the discoloration is removed the buffer, or other approved polishing method. . , " . The defendant's process is not the patented process. It omits a patented step, and in its 'stead includes one which the patentee intended to avoid. There is no infringemant, and the' bill is dis. missed.
Execution-Property in Public Use Exempt.
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS 11. MORRIS and others, U. S.Sup. Ct., ()ct. Term, 1881. Appeal from the circuit court of the United StateS for the district
Louisiana. The substance of the bill is that defendants, having several judgments on the law side of the circuit court, had caused executions, issued on these jUdgments, to be levied upon shares of the st,ock of the New Ol'leaIis Water-works Company, and the Il).a.rshlil had advertised them for sale and ,was about to sell them to the highest bidder; that prior to March 31,1877, the city held by was the sole and absolute owner of the water-works now owned Company; that Ou the corporation known as the New Orleans that day the legislature enacted a law creating that corporat\on with a capital of $2,000,000. .Of this sum the corporation, as sOO1) as Wa& to " issue to the city 'bf New Orleans stock to the amount of $6M,660, fan paid and not subject to assessments, and in addition thereto one sim,i.la.r share for every $100 dollars of water-works bonds the city had tak(;m up arid otherwise; and tluit the residue of extinguished by payment, exchange, benefit of all holders of water-works said capital stock shaU be bonds, to the extent of the amount now outsfanding, who may elect to themselves of the provisions of this act." The bOnds here referred 'to were those issned by the city, while sole owner of the water-works, in aid of their construction and extension. 'rile seventh section of this act reads as' foubws : "Be it further enacted, that· the) Boock owned by the city of . ' in said water-workBcompany shall not be liable"to seizure for 'the' debts 0,(81\1«1 city." Under the statute, and especially under the seve'ntb section, thaclty
invpk,ed the restraiping powerof the (l()urt to prevent the sale of its stock In the company. To this bill defendants interposed a plea to the effect that, so far as the provision of the statute exempting the company's stock from sale under execution relates to their jUdgments, it is void by the provisions of the constitution of Louisiana and of' the United States, which forbid the enactment of laws which impair the obligation of contracts; and in their plea they show that the obligations on which their judgments were obtained agaiJ;lst the city were existing contracts before the passage of the act of 1877. The court held this plea good, refused the injunction, and dismissed the bill. The case was decided in the supreme court of the United States on May 8, 18l:!2. Mr. Justice Miller delivered the opinion of the court reversing the decree of the circuit court, with directions to overrule the plea, and for such further proceedings as are not inconsistent with the opinion of the supreme court. Where one of the defendants filed in the court below, a general demurrer to the bill on 'the ground that there is ample remedy at law by motion to compel the marshal to release his levy on the stock because not liable to be Bold on the execution, and afterwards withdrew his demurrer and joined in the plea on which the cause was decided, we should, ulldet such circumstances, have great in permitting the party who had, by tendering this issue, waived the question of the special jurisdiction of the court in equity, to raise that point for the first time in this court on appeal. But the bill does show on its face a sufficient ground of equitable jurisdiction, sustained by the provisions of the statute which creates a trust in favor of the holders of old water-works bonds of the city, and of other creditors of the city, which is not shown .in any way to have been released or discharged. Although in the ordinary case a wrongful levy on property not subject to seizure the proper remedy is by motion to have the levy discharged, there are in this bill other Bufficient grounds for the equitablejnrisdiction of the court. A state statute which authorizes a city to convert its ownership of prope1;ty, held for the public use, bito the shares of a corporation, and which provides that these shares shall be exempt, from sale uniler execu,tion for its debts, is not in violation of the constitutional, provisions against impairing the obligations of contracts, as the city was using no property in acquiring this stock which could have been appropriated under any circumstances to the payment of its debts. E. Howard,McCaleb, for app$llant. JohnA. Campbell, W. W. Howe, and Albert Voorhies, for appellees. Statute of State-Validity of: THEAMOSKEAG NAT. BANK ti. Tow,N OF OTTAWA. In error to the circuit court of the United Stateslor the northern district of Illinois. The decision in, this case was rendered by the supreme court of the United States in May, 1882. Mr. JQ,stice Gray delivered the opinion of the court. affirming the The ,constitution of the. stateof requiring each house of the legisto keep·and,publis)l a journal of ita proceedings, and on the final passage of all bills to take the yote by ayes an,cl noes,llnd ordaining that no bill shall become a law without the concurrence o(a majority of all the members
Ji6TE8 .OJ' . J)J:CUlIONS.
elect at each house, III not directory. ' Whether asaenHng act of the legislature is or is not a law, is a jUdicial question, to be determined by the court, and not to be tried by the jury:. The 'unWflrmly' given to the constitution of a state by its highest court is binding on the oHhe United States aS3 rule of' decision. An act of the 0f 3 state, which has been held by its bighestJ court· not to be a statute,. because passed as required'by its constitution, cannot upon the same evidence be held a law of the state, and that which is not a law can give no vlilidit:rtobonds purporting to be issued under it. even in the hands of those who take them for full valUe, and in the belief that· they have been lawfully issued. ' The copies of the journals certified by the secretarY'of state, and the printed journals published in obedience to law, are; both competent evidence of,-tlhf3 proceedings of the legislature; and by virtue of statute the copies of the daily journals kept by the clerks of the two houses, and made by persons for the purpose, though not sworn .public officers, in well-l:!ound ,books, furnished by the secretary of state, and afterwards deposited and kept in his office, are official records in his custody, copies of which, certified. by bim, are admissible upon settled rules of evidence, and neither the competency. nor the effect of such copies is impaired by the loss or destruction of the dati)' journals or nUnutes. Where there is nothing in the record flO show tbahitber of the statutes under which ·the municipal bonds in the action were issued, was ever complied with in issuing the bonds, or reUed on by the plaintiff in purchasing them) no action can be maintained on them. ; Oases cited-in the opinion: South Ottawa v. Perkins,94 U. S; 260; SUp'rs of KendaUv. Post, 94 U.8.260;Ryan v.Lynch, 68fll.160; MU· ler v. GoodWin, 70m. 659; Elmwood v.Marcy;'92'U. 8. 289; land v. Skinner, 94 '0. 8. 255; Dunnovan v. Green, 57 Ill. 63; FOl'oe v. Batavia, 61 Ill. 99; Ill. Cent. R. Co.v. Wren, 43 Ill. 77; nedard v. Hall, 44' Ill. 91; Grob v. Cushman, 45 Ill. 119; People v. Dewolf, 62 Ill. 253; :Binz v. Weber, 81 Ill. 288; Happel v. Brethauer, 70 Ill. 166; Watkins: 'v. 16 Pet. 25; Ryan v. Forsythe, 19 How.S84; Gregg v. Fors1th;24 Hdw.179; Evidence-Treasury Transcripts. UNITED STATES V. HUNT and othen, U. S. Sup. Ct.; OotTerirl,' 1881. Error to the CIrcuit oourtof-the United States for the 8Outhel'n dis'trict of Mississippi. Tbiswas au action 'brought by the the official bond of Il collector of taxes under the internal revanueact. He was sued a8 principal, and having died pending the suit,-it was renewed against his executrix. The other defendants were sureties. The' sureties filed joint pleas, and the executrix pleaded separately. The 1>leas were alike, and amounted to lI.'geIleral denial of :every allegation necessary to oonstitute a liability. There was' a verdict and judgment'for defendants; The errol'll assigned arise upon the rulings of the court, upon the trial, upon questions! (')f evidence presented by a bill of exceptions. The plaintiff offered in evidence the certified transcript of the account of deceased, to the introduction of which objection was made on the part of the defendants, and the objection sustained. This ruling was excepted to, and is assigned for error by the plaintiff in error. The decision was rendered in the supreme court of the United States on April