put in dafa-nIt until that notice be aerved upon U:sm-vioe be, by mail, itmut>t be properly addressed. ltis eSc sentiali1thel'efore,to ;the sl,lccessf1.l1oonduct of the businf88.,and to accomplish.lthe:benevolent purpose blthe associatioQ, aecretary ofthe.iilsu'rance department be accurately informed of,theresidence of each member, with a'view to the proper service ofnoticeof:assessments, alld, their collection. .The list, required to be kept by the la.cal secretary coulp:perform no office, except 8S an; .aidto the defendant in its transactions with, its members. In. these respects the local secretary is in no sense the, agent of the assured. The acts required ,are, for the benefit of the assurer, not the assured, and are done by the authority of the company,.notof the member. The jmpositionofsuch duties upon local secretanes constitutes them agents:of the corporation, within the definition of the statute, for the. purpose of setvice of process. . Thil defendant has takellout no license to do business,within this state. n hasapp<>inted no attorney, as required by law, to accept service of process. ;Lt is doing businesswithin the state unlawfully Itsaeks to deprive a citizen of the state, claiming under contract made within the state, of that easy recourse to :the judicial tribunals of the state which was de., signed,to , be secured ,to her by the law. ' The company insists that it may be called to accoun,t.only in the courts of the state of. Iowa .with respectto contracts made with citizens of and within other states. As was said in Railr,ood 00. v. Gallahue, 12 Grat. 658: "It would be a startling proposition if in all such cases citizens of Virginia and otheJ:;\i.sl)PlJld be all remedy in her courts fOJ: <l8uses of action arisingunde,r .and ,acts enterf!d into. or done, her territory, and should be turned over to the courts and laws of a Sister. state to seek redress. " I am not of beneficent of the' state, or of the regulations of the defendant; to adopt grievous Without stopto yalidity of the service upon tbegrand secretary within the state,! am of opinion tbat tfle service upon while the secretary of. the subordinate division of the order within the' state must be sustained. The motion will be overruled. ' ,
UNITED,Sl'ATES 11. WARDELL et ·al.
(ctteuu Oourt> E. D. New ,York. April 6, 1899.)
An indictment under Rev. '1St. U. S. § 5622;161' interfering with a deputy-marshal . at a congressional :elilction while "actingaJ111 performing· tQe duties required 01 , .him, and wbicti .be was. ,then and there au.thorized to perf0rJIl by tbe of the United States," sbould'bequashed for indefiniteness, although stated ln' the very words of the statute, since a:statement of what duties he WIl8A6rforming is of the substance of the offense and material to its description. .,' 9. 84ME. . . A n indictment will be quashed o.nly when it is very groB8l1 balL ;
WilTED STA.TES V. WARDELL.
At Law. Indictment of Sivil Wardell et al. for interfering with a UnUedStJl.tes Ul the disoharge of his duties .at an election for congress. Indictment quashed. Jease Johnson,U. S. Atty. A. H. Wilbur, for respondents. District Judge. This cause has been heard upon a motion, discretion, to quash an indictment upon section 5522 of the Revised Statutes, for, at a poll of election for representatives in congress,molesting, interfering with, striking, beating, wounding, and rescuing a person from the lawful custody of a special deputy-marshal while "acting and performing the duties rl:Jquired of him, and which he was thenandthe:reauthorized to perform by the laws of said United States," and by the provisions of title "The Elective Franchise of the Revised Statutes." Point is made as to how far such a motion will reach. In The King v. Wheatley, 1 W. Bl. 273, Lord MANSFIELD said: "If any distinction is made between quashing and arresting judgment, that of quashing is the strongest way; hecause the indictment must be Vtlry grossly bad to have the court quash it at once." Rex v. Barmon, 1 Burrows, 516; &lz.v. WeBton, 1 Strange, 623; STORY, J., U. S. v. Gooding, Wheat. 478; State v. Stewart, 59 Vt. 273, 9 Atl. Rep. 559. This statute is general, and makes the acts charged punishable only when done to a.marshal, "in the performance of any duty required" of him, or which he "may be authorized to perJorm by a law of the United States." Being in the performance of some of these duties was of the substance of the offense, and very material to its description. Those prescribed in the titlereferretl to, section 2022, as well as elsewhere,. are many and various; that the special deputy-marshal was in any manner in the performanceof any of them is.not in any way alleged but in the words quoted. When an offense is specifically described in a statute an indictment in the words of the statute is sufficient; but, when the statute is more general than is allowable in an indictment, the description must be so much the more specific than the statute. U. S. v. Carll, 105 U. S. 611. In U. So. v. Oru:ikBhnnk, 92 U. S. 542, on motion in arrest, the on the statute against conspiring to prevent or hinder the free exercise and t1njoyment of any right or privilege granteu or secured by the constitution 01' laws of the United States, charged an intent to hinder and all and singuprevent the ti'ee exercise and enjoyment of "every, lat ,t'i such rights. This was held not to be sufficient to charge any offense within the statute. That case seems to govern. this. The generality of Ule allegation of the right or privilege hindered or prevented from tneJ:e was the same as that of the duties being performed here. So wastha.tof the scheme to defr.aud in U. S. v. He88, U. S. 483, 8 Sup. As this indictment does not charge any offense, it would not only be bad on motion in arrest, but is so on this motion. It may before trial as to have judgwent arteliWu on it after. as ;M,Qtionlgranted.
, I. .-. \
. DB 'tAVuGNEREFRIGERATING MAcH. Co. v.
(Oircuit Court, N. D. lllinof.8. February 29, 1892.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-VALIDITY-IssUE OF PATENT TO DEAD' MAN.
Under Rev. St. U. s. § 4896, which provides that, if an inventor dies before a patent is granted htmi the:rigllt of applying for and obtaining a shall vest in his personal reprllsentatives, a patent issued to an inventor aftelt death, he having died attermaking application for such patent, is void. , Where a patent is void beoausegranted to a dead, man, representations that the patent Is valid, made by a party interested in it, do not estop him from denying its validity, as against II person 'Who does not claim title through him.
SAME-EsTOPPEL IN PAIS.
IhEquity. On demurrer. Bill by the 'De la Vergne Refrigerating Machine Company against John Featherstone and others to restrain the of a patent. Defendants demur. Demurrer tained.' ' :, ' Banning, Banning&:' Payaon, for 'complainant. Bdnd,.Adams &: PWkard, for defendants.
, ,BWl;>GE'1'1', is now before the court on a generllldemurrer to the nill of complaint. The matters Eietforthinthe bill necessary to be considered on this demurrer are that before the 24th of November, 1875, one James Boyle had invented the device covered by the patent, infringement of which is charged in this case, and onthe said 24th day or he filed his application for his patent, and appoint-edAlexander& Mason his attorneys to solicit and advocate his application; that on the 27th of said month of November,ahd. before the allowance of, hisptitent; the said James' Boyle died intestate, leaving a widow,Theresa M. Boyle, and four children; that on December 2,1875, Mr$.' Boyle. the widow, entered into a contract with Thomas L. Rankin, whereby he agreed to complete an ice machine-, which was in processofcc#lstruction at the time of Mr. Boyle's death,and to press the application for a patent, and, in case: a patent was obtained, to use the machine, and share the profits with Mrs. his best efforts Boyle until she should have receivedS5,OOO, when; she was to assign the patent and the machines then in use to Rankin; that, under tion of Rankin, Alexander & Mason, the solicitors appointed by Boyle, prosecuted the .application for a patent, and, to overcome· objections made by the, examiner to the said specifi(',ations andclil.ims Ihade by on the 20th of December, 1875; the specRoyle, said ifications ahd6laims, as the same had been prepared by Boyle, and thereafter, ari;d I:>h the 21st day of Mar"'h, 1876, the patent:No.175,020 was granted '\intoJames Boyle, his heirs or assigns, for the' said invention,for the'p'eridd of 17 years from the last-mentioned date; that on the 9th day of Mlirch, 1876, said Thomas L. Rankin obtaineditemporary"lettefs ohdmiriistrationon the 'estate of said James Boyle, and afterwards, and about the 5th day of July, 1876, Theresa·l\L,Boyle, the widow of said James Boyle, was appointed administratrix of the estate