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 The act of 1802, (2 St. 159,) whi eh allowed the questions to be certified up before j udgment, was superseded by the act of July 1,1872, (17 St. 196.)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.
OBLQUIST OBLQUIST and another
JOHN V. FARWELL & Co. and others.
(Ovl'cuit Uourt, D. iowa, N. D.
REMOVAL OF CAUBE-TRESPABB-CAUSE REMANDED.
Where an action of trespass was commenced in a state court against a sheriff for the wrongful seizure of goods of plaintiffs as the property of an attachment debtor, and the creditors of such debtor, citizens of another state, procured themselves to be substituted as defendants in the state court. in place of said sheriff, and removed the cause to the United States (:ircuit court.; held, on motion to remand, that the cause be remanded to the state court.
SAME-PLAINTIFF CANNOT BE DEPRIVED OF ALL REMEDY.
Where the real cause of action is between citizens of the same state, citizens of another state cannot, by procuring themselves to be substituted for the de· fendant, procure the removal of the cause into the federal court, and thereby deprive the plaintiffs of their remedy against the original defendant for a trespass committed by him.
Motion to remand. On the nineteenth day of December, 1881, said John V. Farwell & Co., and other creditors, commenced actions against P. & N. Ohlquist by attachment in the district cQurt of Linn county, Iowa. It is alleged and claimed by the plaintiffs in the present suit that the sheriff of Linn county did not levy the attachments upon the propertyof said P. & N. Ohlquist, but at the request of said Farwell & Co. and others said attachments were levied upon a stock of goods and merchandise belonging to and in the possession of N. A.Sunberg and F. B. Ohlquist; that said N. A. Sunberg and F. B. Ohlquist immediately served notice in writing upon said sheriff that they were the owners of said property, and demanded the same; that John V. Farwell & Co. and others having furnished the sheriff with a bond of ,indemnity, he refused to release the property. It appears that thereupon, on the twenty-ninth day of December, 1881, said N. A. Sunberg and F. B. Ohlquist commenced, in the district court of Linn county, actions of trespass against the sheriff, claiming damages for the seizure of said property; that at the March term of said court for the year 1882, B. F. Seaton, said sheriff, and said Farwell & Co., Becker, and Sherer, Sherk & Co., presented their petition to said court asking that said Farwell & Co., Becker, and Sherer, Sherk & Co. might be substituted in the place and stead of said sheriff as defendants in said action, and that said sheriff might be discharged; whereupon an order was made by said court discharging said sheriff and substituting said Farwell & Co., Becker, and Sherer & Co. as