WISCONSIN CEl\T. R.
der a promise to give the company indemnity lands in lieu of what might be lost by the causes mentioned.. But such no title, and, until it was executed, created no legal interest which could be enforced by the courts." It results from these cases that the agreement between the Omaha. Company and the Central Company that the Jands in dispute should,' as between those companies, belong to the latter corporation, had no effect whatever upon the title ot right of property of the United States. If at that time the lands had been actually set apart for the Bayfield road by approved selections, to supply ascertained deficienc6s in the Elace lhnits of that road, a different question would have been presented for determination. It was stated at the bar that the decision of this case, and of two other cases in ejectment, tried at,thesume time, and depending same facts, would indirectly affect the title to large tracts of land, in the same situation as the particulal'lands here in dispute, and which have been heretofore sold, in good faithjby the Central Company, to bona fide purchasers, in the belief that they were embraced in the contained in the third se,ction of the act of May 5, 1864, and not excluded from, the operation of that apt by the sixth section relating to lands reserved to tho United States; and that a decision in favor of the defendant in the ent case would produce great confusion and trouble -among such purchasers. In view of this statement, the, court has felt it to be its duty to embody in this opinion ,all the material facta shown in evidence, and to state fully the grounds upon which its conclusion rests. That con. elusion is: That the lands in dispute were not granted by the United States for the benefit of the road mentioned in, the third section of the act of May 1), 1864, and that the grant in the first .section of the act 00856 for tbe benefit of the at a point on the line from the St. Croix river or lake to the .west end of Lake Superior, and extending to field, having been fully adjusted by the United States with the only COmpany that was entitled to the benefit of such last-named grant, the lands in dispute became apa!'t of the public domain, in virtue of the orders subsequently made by the secretary of the interior, and were thereafter open to entry under the homestead and pre-emption laws of the United
It is ordered that the verdict heretofore returned by the jury in this case be set aside, and a new trial awarded. Judge BUNN authorizes me to annolince his concurrence in the "iews herein expressed.
Similar orders were made at the same time in Wisconsin Oentral RaIlroad Company v. L. P. Lentz and Wisoo1l8in Oentral Railroad 00. v. Edwar(j BBkken. which were cases in ejectment, and involved the same questions.
i " · ',':
LANE'V.:sbVERIGN et al.
' :' .'.' J
(<UrcuU OOUrt, N. D. nUna1.s. April 21,1890.)
. '; i
Detendal\tS' aUllwll'r to a blll charging the infringement of complaInant"s patent for makingioU-ca'l1s alleged that the cabs were made in accordance with a patent isth,ltt"'i'f 99mplainll.nt, apd admittl'ld tpat'the ftrl!t claim of co.msued 20 days piainant'll patent ilVas sIl:Dllar to the first. patent. The caUlle was beard on the bIll, answer, and'replioation. HeW,' that the admission of lnfllingement was complete; and w,ustbe as tr\1e, alld the the e1fect of the admfsllfoti are bf no avall' witbout ptQ()L " - ' '
J\ : :
.!: . ' :
In Equity. ;D:' forcomplltinant.· 'Banningi,' Banmng &;Payon, .for defendants.
the:complainl,tnt.for an oil-canj andpra)'ing for'aniinjunetion and an accounting for ,profits .and ,.'Defendants answered,admitting the issue oftbelettei'l patent in [email protected]
BLODGBTT,J'.I Thi:s,isablll in defendants with the infringement' of le.tters· patent No, 887 ,426, granted August 7 , 1888, to
clerice. , . :, " .
The production of a copy of the patent i'n evidence, under the tioDj.' 1 !1IMukraises,tbepreaumption ,that complainant was the first inventor oithe device thereby patented; and so much of the answer as depies .of ll?'w in 1n patent IS, I thlOk,responslve to tp9f.?(i?r.eJ .. ,., jO , ' , ... " . , I now co'me to the consIderatIOn of the effect of the admission in the answer of the manufacture of the 837 cans. This answer admits, in effect, that defendants have made 837 cans which contain the features of the first claim of the complainant's patent; but defEmdant!'! insist that