soever my said attorney, or any substitute appointed I))' him, may do in premises by virtue hereof. Inwitne/lS WhereQf, I ,have hereunto set my hand and seal this 22d day of April, A. D. '1873. ' "James :McDona1d. [SeaLl "Signed, sealed, and delivered in presence of "Archy :McDonald. '''Dana White." "State of Minn:esota, county of Ramsey-ss.: On this 22d dayof April, A. D. one thousand eight hundred and seventy-three, before me personally appeared James Me-Donald, persollnlly lmowl! te. me to be the indivilluul described in, ant:). who executed" the foregoing instrument, anll uelmowletlgetl to me tllut he executed the same freely amI voluntarily, and for the usei-l and purposes therein mentioned. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official senl on the day and year in this certificate first above written. Dana 'White, [Notarial Seal.] "Notary Public, Ramsey Co., Minn."
Subsequently, Chowen, as attorney in fact for said patentee, executed certain warranty deeds to one Rufus J. Baldwin, and the latter on December 1, A. D. 1875, duly executed a mortgage on the property to Henry A. Stinson. All of the instruments above mentioned were duly recorded. The mortgage to Stinson was duly foreclosed under a power of sale in said mortgage, and after legal notice, as required by the of Minnesota, and the property therein described was sold by the proper sheriff on July 18, 1881, to the defendant, John De Laittre, and a certificate of sale duly executed by the sheriff, and recorded. On July 17, 1882, George 'V. Chowen made a quitclaim deed to George Douglas, the plaintiff. No redemption was ever made from the foreclosll1'e sale. It is claimed that the instruments executed by the patentees to George W. Chowen conveyed the fee in the land to him, and that the deed to Baldwin, executed by George W. Chowen as attorn,,-y in fact, through which the defendant claims title, is a nullity, and void. These instruments executed and delivered to Chowen are destitute of any greater legal effect than the creation of an irrevo-cable power of attorney, the fee of the land remaining in the pat· ·entees. Chowen, executing the deeds to Baldwin as attorney in fact for the patentees, conveyed the fee in the land therein de· ,scribed; and the defendant, claiming through Baldwin, has the title, and is entitled to a judgment. Let judgment be entered ac.cordingly.
In re OHIBBON. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circllit. May 23. IS!l3.)
CUSTOMS DUTIES-CLASSIFICA'PON- F,lAN.DKEHCIII EFS.
(fnder the t::triff act pf October 1, 1890, par. 373, imposing a duly of 60 per cent. ad valorem upcinthe goods therein enumernted, the provision fOl' "emtm;>iderl;'d and. hemstitched handkerchiefs" COVers only handkerchiefs which are both ,embroidered and hemstitched, and these words cannot be. titken distributively, so as to include handkerchiefs which are embroidered. ouly,or only. ,53. Fed. Rep.' 78, affirmed.
Appeal from the Circuit .court of the United States for the Southern Division of New York.
IN RE GRIBBON.
This was an application by William Gribbon to review a decision of the board of general appraisers affirming the action of the collector of the port of New York in the classification for duty of certain imoorted handkerchiefs. The court below reversed the deeision o(the board, (53 Fed. Rep. 78,) and the collector appeals. Atlirmed.
The goods in question consisted-First, of handkerchiefs with a hemstitched border; second, of handkerchiefs embroidered or scalloped on the edge, and not hemstitched; and, third, of handkerchiefs with a hemstitched border, and embroidered, either with initial letters, or with figures worked by hand or machinery. The collector assessed them all at 60 per cent. ad valorem, under paragraph 373 of the tariff act of October 1, 1890. This paragraph reads as follows: "373. Laces, edgings, embroideries, insertings, neck ruffiings, ruchings, trimmings, tucking's, lace window curtains, and other similar tamboured articles, and articles embroidered by hand or machinery, embroi<lered and hemstitched handkerchiefs, and articles made wholly or in part of lace, nilflings, tuckings, or ruchings, all of the above-named articles composed of flax, jute, cotton, or other vegetable fiber, or of which these substances, or either or them, is the component material of chief value, not specially provided for in this act, sixty per centum ad valorem: provided, that articles of wearing apparel and textile fabrics, when embroidered by hand or machiner3', and whetllCr specially or otherwise provided for in this act, shall not pay a less rate of duty than that fixed by the respective paragraphs and schedules of this act upon embroideries of the materials of which they are respectively composed." 'l'he board of general appraisers held that the provision for "embroidered and hemstitched handkerchiefs" should be understood distributively, the copulative "and" being read "or," so that the clause should apply to handkerchiefs which were hemstitched only, and those which were embroidered only, as well as to those which were both hemstitched and embroidered. '1'he circuit court, however, held that this clause could not be so read, and that the expression "embroidered and hemstitched handkerchiefs" could Include only handkerchiefs which were both embroidered and hemstitched. The court further held that those handkerchiefs which were embroidered, only, should be c1:lssitiecl under the further provision of paragraph 373 for ';textile fabrics" which h:lve been embroic1.ered by hand or machinEry, and mnst therefore pay the same rate of dnty that is paid by embroideries of the material of which they al'e and, as these handkerchiefs were of cotton, they should, under this provision, pay the same dntJ', viz, 60 per cent. ad valorem. As to handkerchiefs which were hemstitched, and not embroidered, the circuit court held that they were dutiable at 50 per cent. ad valorem, under paragraph 349, simply as
Jas. T. Van Rennsalaer, Asst. U, S. Atty., for appellant. W. Wickham Smith, for appellee. Before WALLACE and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:. We agree with the circuit court whose judgment is now under review, and with the circuit court of appeals for the eighth circuit, that only those handkerchiefs which are both embroidered and hemstitched are subject to the duty of 60 per centum ad valorem imposed by paragraph 373 of Schedule J of the act of October 1, 1890. In affirming the judgment it is not to be taken that we concur in the opinion of the circuit court that the embroidered handkerchiefs which are not hemstitched are, by the proviso of paragraph
dutiable, as . "textile .fabrics." It would seem t.hat.Ahey are manufactur,el1 articleslldvanced beyond and outsideo! t.he category of t.extile fabrics, and, like hemstitched handkerchiefs, are dutiable under paragJ;aph 34n, as handkerchiefs. 'Ve danot decide this proposition definitely, however, because the case is here upon an appeal by the collector only. The importer, not having appealed, can only be heard in support of the decision below. Chittenden v. Brewster, 2 Wall. 191; Alviso v. G. S., 8 vValL 337; The Stephen !forgan, 94 C. S. 599; Louden v. District, 104 U. S. 771. And, if an error has been committed by the court below, it was to the advantage of the collector, and furnishes him no ground of complaint. Campbell's Ex'rs v. Pratt, 2 Pet. 354; 'l'ilden v. Blair, 21 Wall. 241; Bethell v. Mathews, 13 vVall. 1. 'rhe judgment is affirmed.
ADEN v..T. L. MOT'r IUOX ·WORKS. (Circuit Comt of Appeals, Sl'cond Circuit. May 23, 1893.)
PATENTS FOR INVEN'l'TONs-INl<'HINGKMEN'f-OvERFLows Fon BA'fHS.
Ueissued patent NQ. 6,739, grant"'1 November 16. 1875, to .James Foley, for an improvl'ment in wash valvps ana oVPl1l0WS for basins and baths, ,"hicll consists in blinging up thl' standpipl'. or outer pipe of the overflow, through the casing or slab contil-,'1lOUS to tlw basin or bathtub, and securely attaching it to a removable cap resting' upon the outsido of thl' casing or slab, is not infringed by th(' dl'viee made lmder lptters patent No. 170,709, to 'Villiam S. Carr, in w11ieh the standpipe is s('cured hy a screw flange resting' on the top of the slab, but has no cap covering its upper end, as has the prior pah·nt.. 4G Fl'd. Hl'p. 77, aftirnwd.
Appeal from the Cireuit COlll:t of the United States for the Southern District of New York. In E.quity. Bill by Fred Adee against the J. I... Mott Iron Works for infringement of a patent. The bill was dismissed, (4G Fed. Rep. 17,) and eomplainant appeals. Affirmed. A. v. Briesen, for appellant. Francis Forbes, for appellee. Before LACOMBE, Circuit Judge, and WHEELER, District Judge. PER CURIAM. This suit was bronght. in the circuit court of the southern district of York for infringement of reissued patent No. G,n!), dated November 1G, 1875, and goranted to James upon surrender of original patpnt No. 153,250, dated Jul.v 21, 1874,fol' an improvement. in waste yalves and overflows. Th,· ,alleged infringement consists in the making of the device patented ,to 'William S. Carr in No. 170,709, dated December 7, 1875, for an improvement in waste valYes andover11ows for baths and bai;in"" and in which the devi·ce patented· to Foley was required by the patent offiCe to be, and was, disclairp.ed. 'rhe bill was dismissed fC?f want of infringement. 4G Fed. Rep. 17. 'rhis patent was be-