it is the valid 8ubjectof RPatEmt."
Many other EnglislfbMes are in entire accord with this; so, also, are a majority of the cases. . "In ObZlar Co. v; WMfe, 7 O. G; 698, in which the patent in questioncontained lI. dlahri for "a shirt col1lh', cdrnposed of paperand muslin, 'or'its e<r/livalerit, $Qunited that the muslin will couuteract' the fragile it was shown that paper and muslin had before united in'·'afabric for maps, etc., itwas held by the court that this use was n9t to that to which the patentee had adapted tHem; and that therefore' the patent was valid. The weight of American authority is in Hine with this view of the law. . It is not nece.ssary to refer to the CRses irl'detail. Most of them will be found in Merwin on tbePatenbibility Of iIllventioIls. ' ,It is obvious that the use 'If sucker-rods for deep wells is not analogOUs ta that for wh.ich metal lightning-rods ;are used, or to which they are iii itny way adapted,and hence that the latter do not anticipate the fotnler as a patentable' subject. The patent in 8uft'must therefore be sustained; and a' decree will be entered for an injunction and .an account, 'With 'costs. .
17. THE HARRIET
(Oircuit OO'lih"t,D. South Oarolina. February 1, 1800.)
was taken siok, and was unable to do al/.yworkuntU thellohooner reaohed Charleston, where he helped get the vessel to the wharf, and was'then sent to the hospital, the vellsel returning without him. Held, that he wasentitied to recover wages for . the whole voyage. . , .
t.SAME--BIilUOK OJl' CONTRAOT.
.,()tage iii a little over a month. A few days after leaVing Philadelphia, libelant
Libelant shipped on board a sohooner for a voyage from Philadelphia to Charleston and back, not til exoeed three months in duration. The schooner completed the
The fact that he had S' :short time before shipping on the sohooner been in hospitalfol" treatment for a ,disease diJ!erent from that by whioh he was afterwards attaolted., llUt had beendisohal'ged from hospital as oured" does not show suoh a brea,ohoi',the oondition thathe was able·bodied as to avoid the contraot for wages.
'Itappeal'ed that, the.libelant left the schooner for the hospital, the master and mate, who had shown him all kinllness, and for the purpose of further favoring him, colleoted his olothes and deposited them in the wharf office for him. Held, that the libelant oould not m,aintain a olaim for damages because some of his olothes were missing.
In Admiralty. Libel for wages and damages. O. B. NorthrlYfJ' for libelant. H. Sinkler, fdr responaent.
SIMONTON, J. The libelant shipped before the mast on the echooner Harriet C. Kerlin, at Philadelphia, on 21st November last. The shipping articles provided for a voyage from Philadelphia to Charleston and
HIGHLAND V. THE HARRIETC. ,]tERLIN.
1:>llCk to a port north ,of not to three months, wages $20 · per mQQth. The schooner made the voyage and returned to Philadelphi&, consuming a month and a few days. This terminated the engagement. The Caroline Miller, 36 Fed. Rep. 508. The schooner began her voyage, and went, down the Delaware as far as Chester. There she her voyage, the next day, libelant was anchored .. When she sick, disabled from work, and so contin!\;led until they reached Charleston He then came out and worked until the schooner came to the Wharf, theaame day, and continued work the next day. That night he was sent to the hospital, and was not well enough to return to the schooner again. He had been in, hospital in Charleston on a former occasion, sick with chronic dia.rrhea, and had been advised to go north. He did this, went into hospital at Philadelphia, and was discharged, recovered, a few days'pefore coming on this schooner. He was shipped by an agent oih,er master, and was met by the mate on his arrival, who saw that he had be!3n sick, but ,made no objection to bim. When taken ill, he had cramps in the stomach, but no diarrhea.. The master and mate treatlld liini with great kindness, doing all in their PQwer for him on shiJrboard, and getting him to hospital. When the schooner was about to sail they had his clothes put up ina bag and hand-sack, and notified him bvtelephone that they were left for him in the wharf office, and received"his reply, "All right.", When he examined the bag and valise, libelant found some articles missing. Henow brings suit for full wages for the whole voyage, crediting five dollars received on account, and demands all:lO the value of the missing clothing. Respondent insists that the essential condition of the contract of shipping as seaman was tbat libelant was able-bodied; that his illness, occurring so soon after his al:l'ival On board, shows that this condition was not fulfilled; and that the sm;n of five dollars paid by the master to libelant was given and received as full compensation. From the litUe evidence given at the hearing, it would seem that libelant had recovered from his sickness, and was able to go towork; that hiB failure to perform not arise from debility from diseasej but was,the consequence acute attack of a different disease from.that which attacked him If he had made false representations, or had used any effort to mislead the master, it might ,be different. Nothing of this appears. lain constrained by the authorities to give him his full wages, notwithstanding he did not earn them. Judge STORY in ErnersCYn v. Howland, 1 Mason, 52, deciding this point, says that by the rule of the civil law if a party be prevented, without his default, from performing full services, he is still entitled to the stipulated hire for the whole period fal' which he contracted to serve. He shows that this rule is followed in the maritime codes of foreign countries. This is certainly the case in the Laws of Oleron, art. 7, 1 Pet. Adm. XVI., and in the Laws of Wisbuy, 1 Pet. Adm. LXXIV., and in the Laws of the Hanse Towns, art. 45,1 Pet. Adm. CVI. See, also, Hart v. The Littlejohn, 1 Pet. Adm. 116. In this case the same judge discusses this rule in full. He shows that in every case in which a seaman, through no fault of his own, is disabled, he
SCOTT". TEXAs LAl!i'D, 4: CATTLE CO.
SCOTT v.TExAS LAND & CATTJ,E CO., Limited.
(Oircuit Oourt, W. D. Texas. December 21, 1889.)
RBKOVAL Oll CAUSllS-NoN-RESIDENTS-FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.
A foreign corporation doing business in Texas through localage'ntll, and being, under Gen. Laws Tex. 1887, p. 132, subject to suit by service on the local agents, iB not a nOJ;l-resident, and entitled to remove a cause to the federal courts, under Aot Cong. Aug. 13, 1888, 3 2, 'prOViding for removal by non-resident dllielldanta.
On Motion to 'Remand to State Court. Ho'U8ton Bro8., for plaintiff. Ogden & .[ohnacrn, for defendant. MAXEY, J. This suit was originally instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant in the district courtofNueces county, Tex. It involves the title to several tracts of llind"and the amount in controversy is in excel:lS of The defendant filed a petition and bond to remove the suit to this court, January 25, 1889, and on the succeeding day an order of removal was duly entered by the district court, and the record was here filed on April 24th following. A motion to remand is made by the plaintiff, the principal grounds of which are: "(1) It appears from petition of defendant for removal, and the pleadings in the district court of Nueces county, the defendant is a corporation, resident and doing business in the state of Texas. (2) Said petition does not allege or show that the defendant is a non-resident of the state of 'rexas." , .The motion is accompanied by a plea in abatement, but, to obviate the necessity oian inquiry into the facts affecting the question at issue, the partieS have filed the following stipulation: "It is agreed that the court, in considering and passing upon th,e motion to remand and plea to the j urisdictlon, shall consider these agreed facts, The defendant is a cOl'porationchartered under the laws of the kingdom of Great Britain; that said defendant has complied with the statutes of Texas by filing its charter the secretary of state of the state of Texas, and taken out a permit to do business in Texas; that said defendant does do business in Texas, w1Jereit has agents for the and where it claIms to own property and land." ' The law ofthe state, under which was granted to defendant the permit to do business within the state, went into effect after the removal proceedings were filed in this court, and it is not regarded as having application to this suit. The statute of Texas fixing the venue of suits against corporations provides: "That foreign, private, or public corporations, joint-stock companies or associations, not incorporated by the laws of this state, and doing business within this state, may be sued in any court within this state haVing jurisdiction over the Subject-matter, in any county where the cause of action or a part thereof accrued, orin any county where such company may have an agency or representati ve, or in the county in Which the principal office of snch company may be situated; or, when the defendant corporation has 110 agent or repra-sentative in the state, then in the county where the plaintiffs, or either of them. reside." Gen. Laws 'rex. 1887. p.132. v.41F.no.o-15