Under the laws of Texas the lieil acquired by judgment and levy of tion is superior to an unrecorded deed; and the 'purchaser at the execution Bale on judgments antedating the recording of a mortgage,and without notice of it, has a better title than the mortgagee, although the sale was made subsequent to the recording of the mortgage. W. S',Herndon and A. Q. Keasbey, for appellants. W. S. Davidge and James Lowndes, for appellees. Cases cited 'in the opinion: 'Price v. Cole, 35 Tex. 461; Ayres v. Duprey, 27 Tex. 593; Grimes v. Hobson, 46 Tex. 416; Catlin v. Bennatt, 47 Tex. 165; Mainwaring v. Templeman, 51 Tex. 205.
Appeal-Amount in Controversy. LAMAR '0. Mwou, U. S. Sup. Ct., October Term, 1881. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the' southern district of' New York. The case was decided in the supreme court on December 19, 1881. Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the coul't disinissing the appeal, as the decree was for les8 than 85,000; and the fact that the decree should have been for more than that amount cannot be urged, in order to confer jurisdiction ,on the supreme court. Edward N. Dickenson and Charles Beaman, Jr., for appellant. S. P. Nash, for appellee. Cases cited: Thompson v. Butler, 95 U. S. 694: !Sampson v. Welsh, 24 How. 207. 'Tax Colleotor-Bond of. UNITED STATES '0. JACKSON, U. S. Sup. Ct., Oct. 'l'erm, 1881. Error to the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Virginia. The case was decided in the supreme court on October 31,1881. Mr. Justice Miller delivered the opinion of the court affirming the judgment. A bond of a collector of taxes, which does not bind the obligors on its face for the faithful performance by the principal of the duties of his office in any particular district, is not, for that reason, void as to the sureties. A declaration on such a bond must aver that he had been appointed collector of revenue for some district. S. F. Phillips, Sol. Gen., for plaintiffs. Shellabarger & Wilson, for defendants.
Practice-Affirmance-Appeal Taken for Delay. MICAS '0. WILLIAMS, U. S. Sup. Ct., Oct. Term, 1881. Error to the circuit court -of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana. The case was decided in the supreme court of the United States on Jam13ry 16, 1882. Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court affirming the decision -of the circuit court; [t appearing that the writ:of error had been taken for delay only, and contained no assignment of errors, as required by section 997 .of the Revised Statutes. Thomas J. Durant, for plaintiff in error. Joseph P. Hornor, for defendant in error.
Practice-Review on Certificate of Dillision. BANKING HOUSE OF BARTHOLOW'll. TRUSTEES OF SCHOOLS, U. S. Sup. Ct., October Term, 1881. On a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of Illinois. The decision of the supreme court was rendered on October 31, 1881. Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court. Under section 693 of the Revised Statutes, final judgments of the circuit courts in civil actions, wherein there has been a division of opinion of the judges, are only reversable in the supreme court on writ of error or appeal. The act of 1802, (2 St. 159,) whi eh allowed the questions to be certified up before j udgment, was superseded by the act of July 1,1872, (17 St. 196.) Appeal to Supreme Court-Practice. , SCRUGGS 'V. VISER, U. e. Sup. Ct., October Term, 1881. Appeal from the district court of the United States for the northern district of Mississippi. The case was decided in the supreme court on December 12, 1881. Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court denying the motion to dismiss the appeal, the citation and bond being sufficient, and the amount involved being over $5,000. Cases cited in the opinion: U. S. v. Curry, 6 How. 111; Bacon v. Hart, 1 Black, 38; Brockett v. Brockett, 2 How. 240. Patents for Inventions. THE PACKING COMPANY CASES, U. S..Sup. Ct., Oct. Term,1881. AplJeals from the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of Illinois. The decision of the supreme C0urt was rendered on May 8, 1882. Mr. Justice Woods delivered the opinion of the court affirming the decree of the circuit court. Where there is nothing new in the process described in the patent, and all the elements are old and are merely aggregated, and the aggregation brings out no new product, nor does it bring out any old product in a cheaper or otherwise more advantageous way, it is not patentable. William Henry Clifford, John N. Jewett, and L. L. Bond. for appellants. J. W. Noble, J. C. Orrick, and L. L. Coburn, for appellees. Cases cited in the opinion: Pearce v. MUlford. 102 U. S. 112; Rubber Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard, 20 Wall. 498; Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 11 How. 248; Stimpson v. Woodman, 10 Wall. 117. Patents for Inventions-Decree Affirmed. PRICE 'V. KELLY, U. S. Sup. Ct., Oct. Term, 1881. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Minnesota. The case was decided in the supreme court on October 25, 1881. Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court affirming the decree, because of the imperfect state of the record, and the lack of models and drawings, and a failure on the part of appellant to present the case.