LIn a: still later case this affirmed, in an 'by BLATCHFORD, in language, (Oornelyv. MarCkwald, 131 'U.,S.159, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 744:) ""',. ',IS 'the question 'of a1\ estauliilhedlicense fee. the case Is govern'ed by tberooent decision of this court in Rudev. Westcott, 100 U. 8.152, [9 Sup. Ct.' Rep.: 463,] where it was held; that, the payment of 'n' sum in settlement t:ol' &ll ailE-gad infringement of a patent 'cannot be, taken asa standt(), measure the value of the improvements patented, in determining the sustained by tbeowner 'patent in other cases ot lnfringenient.'" . !twill btl observed by reference to the master's reportthltt the standard ad9pted by.him in this:case, to J)1e!tlJure the value Qft1le improvements patented in determining the plaintiff's damages, is one taa supreme court says cannot be taken, and, furnishes n9basis for a decree for, damages. , The to that part of the report awarding damages to the report, both by plaintiffs and, is sustained. .AU are overr:uleli. "The decree will be entered in accorrlance with the rUlings of the court, and a prayer for appeal by both parties will be entered and allowed.
(Owcuf,toourl; B. D. New York.
MAIUTIME LIENS-FREIGHT AND, DEM'QRRAq. . .
LOST. ' , ,',',' ", " '
A cargo of lath, sold' bY the consignee to the claimant before was diloharged without notice to, c,.laimant f, a, l,ien r claim for frei,g,ht and d,e,m,urrage, it being oustomaryin the port of New 'YOrk to p,ischarge catgoeaffo/ll before dema,nd,ing fre,dgli,t'aDd d,emu,rrage" and,' the laths, as 'fast,, as theY, w,er,,'e dis, by. ,the clai/llant,an!l, transpor,ted, whar;f ,'tf> ,his cllarged, were lumber-yarq. ahalf Libelant's claim for freight and consignee and shippel'being afterwards disputed as to aIl10unt, this libel'wail filed five days after the 'discharge was completed to establish a lien. Held that, as the delivery was uQ,CQnliitional,the lien had been, lost;. A1JiI'miDg 41 Fed. Rep.
In Admiralty. fromdistrlct court. ",Libel by Frank Egan against a'cargo of, spruce lath for freight and The libel 'was dismissed, and libelant appeals. ' ", Hyland Zabriskie,forlibelant. ' , Barker, Jr., for
J. Decree ,of district court affirmed, with costa.
WILSON t'. KNOX COUNTY.
WIUlONV. KNOX COUNTY.
(O£rcuit Court, N. D. Missouri. E. D. Septemb9r 2IS, 1890.)
FBDERAL COURTS-JURISDICTION-ASSIGNMENT OF CROSE IN AOTION.
By Act Congo March 3, 1887, providing that no circuit or district court of tbe United States shall have cognizance of any suit except upon foreign bills of exchange. to recover the contents of any promissory note or otber cbose in action in favor of any assignee, or of any subsequent bolder, if such instrument be payable to bearer and be not made by any corporation, unless such suit migbt bave been prosecuted in sucb court to recover tbe said contents if no assignment or transfer had been made, it was intended toprohibit suits in the federal court br assignees of choses in actions, unless the original assignor was entitled to maintalU the suit, in all cases except suits on foreign bills of exchange, and except suits an promissory notes made payable to bearer, and executed by a oorporation.
At Law. Action on promissory notes. This was a suit against Knox county, Mo., on certain county warrants aggregating $7,000, which were of thefolldwing form, omitting the dates, names of payees, amounts, etc.
"STATE OF MISSOURI.
"8 EDINA, -----'-. 188-. "T,'easurer of Knox County: Pay to - - - - - - dollars out of any money in the treasury appropriated for - - - fund.. Given at the courthouse the date above written, by order of the county court. "Attest: - - - , Clerk. - - - , Presiding JUdge."
The warrants were originally issued to a citizen of the state of Missouri, who assigned them to the plaintiff, a citizen of Illinois. The assignments are as follows: . "For value received, - - - 88sign the within warrant to - - - . this - - day of---, 18-." Both the warrants and the assignments thereon are in the fa-rm prescribed by the laws of the state of Missouri for drawing and assigning such instruments. W. C. Hallister and F. H. McCullottgh, for plaintiff. JameB Carr, for defendant. Before MILJ,ER, Justice, and CALDWELL, J. MILLER, Justice. This case is pending in the northern division of this district, but by stipulation of counsel has been argued before us in the eastern division of the district. The question that arises on the demurrer to the plea of the jurisdiction is whether the assignee of the warrants can maintain a suit thereon in this court, under the judiciary act of March 3, 1887, although the original holder was incapacitated from such a suit. The clause of the act under which the question arises is as follows: "Nor shall any circuit or district court have cognizance of any suit except upon foreign bills of exchange, to recover the contents of any promissory note or other chose in action in favor of any assignee, or of any subsequent holder, if such instrument be payable to bearer and be not made by any corporation. unless such suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover the said contents if no assignment or transfer had been made." v.43F.no.8-31