Volume 105 — United States Reports

. Error to the Circuit Court 'of the United States for. the Northern District'of Illinois. This was an action brought by Wade against the town of Walnut, upon, coupons cut from bonds purporting to be issued by the defendant, under the . style of Township of Walnut, in the. County of Bureau and State of Illinois.

Missouri. This was a-suit brought in the'Circuit Court,of St. Louis County, Missouri, against Leffingwell arid the other defendants, to restrain and enjoin the sale of certain real estate in the city of St. Louis, under a deed of trust executed to secure the pay-. ment of a promissory note whereof the- Atlas National Bank of Boston became the purchaser.

Davis, having obtained a-judgment against Wellington A. Fredericks, -sued out a writ of attachment, by way of execution, which Clark, the sheriff of Gallatin County, Montana Territory,' levied upon some personal chattels alleged to be-' "long to the judgment debtor, but which his wife claimed were her separate propérty.

<p>On a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Illinois. -</p>

<p>Error to the Circuit Court of the United States, for the District of Kentucky.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>1. Where, by a State statute, the charter of a,street-railroad company was repealed, and its franchises and track were transferred to another, and the company refuses to seek a remedy, a stockholder who. asks an injunction ' on the ground that the statute impairs the obligation of a contract will' have a standing in a court of equity. •</p> <p>2. Such a statute impairs the obligation of 'a contract, unless the legislature • reserved the right to repeal the statute conferring the charter.</p> <p>3. In Massachusetts such a reservation becomes part of every act of incorporation, by virtue of sect 41, chap. 68, of the General. Statutes, which declares, “Every act of incorporation passed after the eleventh day of , March, in the year one.thousand eight hundred and thirty-one, shall be subject to amendment, alteration, Or repeal at the pleasure of the legislature.” ■</p> <p>4. The origin of this and similar clauses of reservation in the statutes of the /States stated.</p> <p>6. By the exercise of the repealing power reserved by such a clause the charter no longer exists, and whatever validity transactions entered inth and. authorized by it while it was in force may possess, there can be no new transactions dependent on- the special power conferred by the .charter. Such power is abrogated when the law granting it is repealed:</p> <p>6. Neither the "rights’of the shareholders to the real and personal property of - the corporatio'n, nor rights of contract, or choses in action, are destroyed' by such repeal; and if the legislature has provided no specific mode of enforcing and protecting such rights, the courts will do so by the means within their power.</p> <p>7. If the legislature has the-power to repeal the statute under which a company was organized, it can charter a new one, and confer the samé powers On it as the former possessed; and, so far as the property or franchises of' , the old company áre necessary to the public use, it can 'authorize the new one to take them, on making due compensation therefor.</p> <p>8. A statute which, under this power, repeals an act of incorporation, and at the sanie time creates a, new one with similar powers,-the use-of which re-_ quires the exercise of the right of eminent domain, is not in conflict with • the Constitution of the United States, if it provides for compensation for - the property of the extinct corporation so taken/by the new one.</p>

Appeals from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Held: that where the dimensions of a stone exceed twenty feet, he is entitled for each cubic foot sixty-five cents, and one cent additional for every cubic foot of the entire stone.

<p>1. A shipping commissioner who has received two dollars for services in connection with the shipment of a seaman is not entitled to a fee on his reshipment- on subsequent successive voyages of the same vessel.</p> <p>2. This court will not review the decision of a State court, that the fee exacted by the commissioner on the seaman’s reshipment can be recovered back, • although no objection thereto was made at the time it was paid.</p>

This was an action brought iñ a district court of .Arizona to recover the sum of -$2,0Q0 alleged to be owing by the defendants-to the plaintiffs for professional services as attorneys and counsellors-at-law in that Territory in 1877. and 1878. The complaint alleges that the services wére performed,in several-suits and proceedings, upon a retainer by the^ defendants; and that they were reasonably worth that sum. The answer is a general denial.

Held: that the instruction was correct. Error to tbe Circuit Court of tbe United States for the' Northern District of Illinois. The facts are stated in the

<p>Appeal from the’ Circuit Court of. the United. States for the District of Massachusetts.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Held: that the conditions were''not unauthorized by'the statute, and constitute no defence to an action .on the bonds. 2.

The judgment below was for the amount due on .certain bonds, with interest coupons attached, issued by the township of New Buffalo, in the county of Berrien, and State of Michigan, plaintiff in error, under the authority of a general statute of 'that State, approved March 22, 1869, conferring power upon townships, cities, and villages to pledge their aid, by loan or donation, with, or without conditions,, to any railroad company organized under the laws óf that State, ill…

Held: and used, and real estate which may, at law, be sold under execution, is well illustrated in Gue v. Tide Water Canal Co., 24 How. 257 .

The bill, filed by Joseph Lehnbeuter' and Casper Claes, charged Arnold Holthaus and Anton Holthaus with infringing design patent No. 8814 for show-cases, granted to the complainants jointly, and dated Nov. 80, 1875. The answer denied that the complainants were the first inventors of the- design patented; denied its utility, and the alleged infringement. To sustain these denials all the testimony offei p'd by the. defendants was directed.

Held: that under the act of June 30, 1876, c. 159 ( 19 Stat. 65 ), he is entitled to mileage for the whole distance travelled. . Appeal from the Court of Claims. This was an- action’ brought in the. Court of Claims by Temple, a commodore in the United States navy, to recover mileage for travel under orders. . The controversy. arises upon the construction of. an act of .Congress.

Held: by them, the said Stephens and Blennerhassett, and in'no’., way used without the conseñt of the said Allen., “ They further declared to Allen that if he refused to execute said mortgage they would at once cease to make advances to him or the Cook’County National Bank,- and would' take no steps to protect the draft's drawn by the Cook County National *104 Bank on New" York, which would cause its suspension.

Held: that the decree is correct. Appeal from the Supreme Court of the.District of Columbia..

<p>Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Held: in an action on the '' bonds, that the plaintiff had no ground of exception, 1, to the admission of evidence that, at the time when the agreement and bonds were made, Confederate'currency was-bankable and was the only currency in circulation in Virginia, the value of gold in relation to such currency was as nineteen or' twenty to one, slaves were not selling at all for gold, and these slaves were not worth in…

Held: That the agreement was in equity void as to creditors. 2! That before an action at law can -be maintained by the assignees in bankruptcy against a stockholder to recover upon his unpaid subscription of stock, some proceedings in the interest of creditors are necessary in a court of competent jurisdiction, to set aside the agreement, and to make an assessment upon such' unpaid stock. 3.

On June 22; 1858, there was issued to Gideon Bantz,-the appellant, who was complainant in the court belows an original patent of that date “ for an improvement in furnaces for heating steam-boilers.” On Feb. 6, 1872, Bantz obtained a reissue, and on June 22,1872, an extension for seven years of his ■reissued patent. The bill in this case was.filed by him on May 4, 1876, to restrain infringement by the defendant, David Frantz; of the extended reissue.

Held: that no right of the city was infringed by a subsequent enactment of the General Assembly of that State granting to a railroad company the authority to enclose and occupy for its purposes and uses a specifically described portion of .the levee ,and batture, and maintain the wharf it theretofore erected on its property within those limits, and ex- • empting it from the supervision and control which the municipal…

Held: That the indorsement is a new contract upon sufficient consideration, and is negotiable within the meaning of the law merchant, and by the law of that State. ■ 2. That B., the lawful holder thereof, is not precluded from suing thereon in the Circuit Court, by the fact that A. is a citizen of that-, State. • 2.

Held: that it was irregular to permit the defendants, in support of their ' objections, to put in evidence going to the merits of their defence, and that the bond did not show when A.’s successor entered upon duty. 2.

Held: that the decree below is proper, the bill being merely for an account • of profits and damages against an infringer, and it not appearing from the case thereby made that any ground of equitable jurisdiction exists, or that A. has not a complete remedy at law whereby damages for the wrongs complained of can be recovered^ Appeal from the. Circuit Court of the. United States for the Northern District of Illinois.

Held: That as between A. and B. the title to the stock passed by A.’s delivery of. the certificate with the accompanying po>ver of attorney. 2. That the acts of the cashier were binding on the bank, and the transfer by him made on the .stock ledger vested in B. a complete and unincumbered title to the stock, and a right to the usual certificate as evidence of ■ his ownership. 3.

Held: that W. having put an end "to it by canvassing on behalf of another party for a rival edition of the same work, and cancelling the orders he had obtained for S.’s reprint, S. was not bound thereafter to furnish him with copies of the.work on credit. Error to tbe Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.

Held: that the matter in dispute is not the entire fund, but their distributive shares thereof, and the amount being less than $5,000, this court has no jurisdiction. 2. Terry v. Hatch (93 U. S. '4A) cited and approved. Motion to dismiss an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Tennessee. The facts are stated in the

<p>An appeal is the only form of proceeding by which this court can review the judgment or the decree of a territorial court in a case where.-there was not a trial by jury.</p>

Held: that, to enforce payment, the holder of them must sue the county, and judgment,if rendered in his favor, will be in form against it, and be collected by a tax upon the taxable property of the precinct. 2. The courts of the United States cannot by mandamus compel , the collection of a tax to pay such bonds until a judgment upon them shall be obtained'.

<p>Appeal from the Court of Claims.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Held: that the bill was properly dismissed. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois. The facts are stated in the

Held: in a suit by his personal representatives ■ against the railway company, that as his own act was the proximate catise of his death, they are not entitled to recover. Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia. The facts are stated in the

Held: that the ease being an exceptional one, inasmuch as the market for such pumps was confined to a particular region, and the demand for them was so ■limited that, although no other species of pump could successfully compete . with them, a single manufacturer could easily and with reasonable promptness fill all orders for them, the patentee is entitled to recover the difference be- ' tween the cost of the material and…

Held: by the company were sold by the State more than ten years before this suit was begun. Consequently they áre not exempt as swamp lands. Judgment affirmed:

<p>Motion to dismiss an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for-.the Northern District of Illinois.</p>

This was a suit in replevin, ■ brought by the United States in one of the District Courts of the Territory of Wyoming, against the Union Pacific Railroad Company to recover the possession of certain goods' intended for the Indian service.

<p>An appeal, dismissed under rule 16, will not be reinstated, .unless good cause . therefor be shown. .</p>

Held: was subject to the control which every court retains over its ordinary judgments during the term. In Draper v. Davis ( 102 U. S. 370 ), however, it was decided that, after a-boiid had been accepted by one of the judges in accordance with such an order of allowance, the jurisdiction was transferred from the court below. Here a bond wat not only accepted, but the case was actually entered in-this c(urt.

Motion to dismiss an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland, with which is united a motion to affirm. The Merchants’. Steamship Company, of Charleston, South Carolina, as owner, of the steamship “Falcon,” filed its libel in the District Court of the United States for the District of Maryland, in a cause of collision, civil and maritime, against the schooner “ S. C.' Tryon,” and' obtained a decree.

Held: that the bill should be dismissed. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Illinois. , The facts are stated in the

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana.</p> <p>This was a petition of the State of Louisiana, on the relation of the Southern Bank, a corporation created under its laws and doing business in New Orleans, to one of its District Courts, for a mandamus to compel the municipal authorities of that city to levy a special tax to pay certain coupons on outstanding bonds issued under an act of the State in 1872, and to purchase the bonds with any surplus remaining of the moneys ■ collected. The history of the issue of the bonds is as follows: The city of New Orleans was originally incorporated by an act of the legislature in 1805, and its charter continued in force until the 8th of March, 1836. An act was then passed which divided the city into three municipalities, each .of which was created a distinct corporation, with “ such rights, powers, and capacities as are commonly incident” to municipal bodies. This division continued until Feb. 23, 1852, when, by an act known as act No. 71 of that yqar, and entitled “An Act to consolidate the city of New Orleans and to provide for the government and administration of its affairs,” the three municipalities were again united into one. The act of 183.6 provided that a proportionate part of the debt of the- city should be paid by each municipality, the quota being fixed upon the basis of the amdunt of taxes and other revenue accruing to it. The separate municipalities subsequently created debts; and the act of Feb. 23, 1852, provided for the issue of bonds for the payment of those debts, and also for the debt of the old city. The thirty-seventh.section, which dealt with this subject, is as follows: —</p> <p>“ Sect. 37. He it enacted, die., that the debt of the general sinking fund, commonly called the old city debt; and the debts of the three municipalities, whether in the form of bonds, notes, interest cou-.. pons, cash warrants, or other species of obligation whatever, shall be' assumed and paid by the city of New Orleans, and said city is hereby declared liable therefor. The mayor, comptroller, and treasurer, and chairmen of the finance committees of the two boards of the common council, shall constitute á commission, to be called the commissioners of the consolidated debt of New Orleans; and they shall have power to issue bonds of the city of New Orleans, having not more than forty years to run, with interest payable at such place as may be agreed on between said commissioners and the parties to whom the bonds are issued, in semi-annual coupons, in exchange for any bonds, obligations,'or debts of the old corporation, or of any of the old municipalities, whether matured or not, or to sell the new bonds and apply the proceeds to the payment of ■ the matured debts of the old corporation or of the municipalities, but to no other purpose. The bonds thus issued shall form a stock to be called the consolidated debt of New Orleans. At the time this act goes into operation, an exact and detailed statement of the indebtedness of the old corporation and ,of each'municipality'shall be filed in -the office of the comptroller, by the secretary of the board of liquidátors and the municipal comptrollers respectively, when the commissioners of the consolidated debt shall proceed to divide the debt of the old corporation-between the several municipalities, in proportion to the- assessed value of'real estate within the limits of each, according to the State-assessment roll for 1851. The amount thus apportioned to each, together with its individual. .indebtedness at the time this act goes into operation, shall constitute the separate debt of each municipality, and shall‘be known as the debt of municipality No. one, No. two, No. three. The common council shall, annually, in the month of' January, pass an ordinance to raise the sum of six hundred thousand dollars, by a special tax, on real estate and slaves, to be called the consolidated loan tax, and . the rate per cent of said tax, in each municipality, shall be in proportion to the indebtedness of each. All ordinances, resolutions, o.r other acts passed by said council, after the first day of January in each year, shall be null. and void, unless the ordinance imposing the consolidation loan tax shall have been previously passed. At the end of each and every year, any surplus, of the consolidated loan tax remaining in-the treasury, after the payment of all the interest and the expenses of the management of said debt, shall.be applied to the purchase, from the lowest bidder, of such bonds issued under this act, as have the shortest period to run; and the common council shall have the right of rejecting all bids demanding more than the face of the bonds; for which purpose, public notice shall be given by the comptroller in the official gazette for thirty days, inviting proposals from bondholders for the sale, to the city, of the bonds herein described. From and after the passage of this act no -obligation or evidence of debt of any description whatever, except those herein authorized, shall be issued by the city of New Orleans or under its authority; nor,shall any loan be contracted, unless the samfe be-authorized by a vote of a majority of the qualified voters of said city, which shall be taken in the manner .prescribed by the city council, after ten days, proclamation by the mayor, in the newspaper chosen, by the common council; and no ordinance creating a debt or loan shall be valid, unless such ordinance shall prescribe ways and means for the.punctual discharge at maturity of the capital borrowed or debt incurred; and such ordinances shall not be repealed until principal and interest of the capital borrowed or the debt incurred are fully paid and discharged.”</p> <p>By a supplementary act approved on the same day, known as No. 72 of the year, the adjacent city of Lafayette was added to the city of New Orleans, and provision was made for the assumption and payment of its debt. The fifth section of the act is as follows: —</p> <p>“ Sect. 5. Be it further enacted, Sc., that the debt of the city of Lafayette shall be assumed and paid'by the city of New Orleans, and the said city of New Orleans is hereby declared liable therefor; and the amount of said debt shall be ascertained, and its payment provided for and made in the same manner - as the debt of each municipality of New Orleans is ascertained and provided for in the act to which this act is a supplement; and in raising annually the -consolidation loan tax for the payment of the debt of New Orleans, an additional sum of fifty thousand dollars shall be raised for the purpose of providing fdr the debt of the city of Lafayette, now added to that of New Orleans, so that the whole amount of the annual levy of taxes for the payment of the debt of New Orleans shall be six hundred and fifty thousand dollars.”</p> <p>Under these acts, No. 71 and No. 72, the commissioners of. the consolidated debt issued bonds of the city of New Orleans, known as" consolidated bonds, to the amount of ten million dollars, in exchange for the,bonds, obligations, and debts of the old city, of the three municipalities, and of the city of Lafayette. Of this amount bonds exceeding five million dollars have been paid by funds receivéd under the tax levied pursuant to the prpvisions of the thirty-seventh section of act No. 71 and of the fifth section of act No. 72, beyond what was necessary to meet the annual interest. There remain' outstanding bonds for more than four million dollars,, with interest since 1876. Of these bonds, with unpaid coupons, the relator owns upward of six hundred, each for -the sum of one thousand dollars.</p> <p>The petition refers to the acts No. 71 and No. 72 of 1852, and cites at length the sections mentioned. It also alleges that the bonds issued under them were negotiable securities; that by reason of the law providing for the payment of the interest and the gradual reduction of their number through a sinking fund, they were negotiated at their par value or above it, and distributed in the markets of Europe and of the United States in the due course of business as a secure, permanent, and trustworthy investment; that the free banks of the State were compelled to invest in them to secure the circulation of their bills, and that individuals and corporations did likewise with confidence in the provisions of sect. 37 of act No. 71, and sect. 5 of act No. 72, for the maintenance and enforcement of which the public faith of the State of Louisiana and of the city of New Orleans was inviolably pledged.</p> <p>The petition then alleges that, in violation of the provisions ‘of law mentioned, which constitute a contract with the bondholders, binding both upon the State of Louisiana and the city of New Orleans, the legislature of the State, on the 12th of March, 1874, passed an act entitled “An Act to postpone the levy and collection by the city of New Orleans of a tax for á sinking fund for’ the purchase of its bonds, to authorize the administrators of the city to modify the last budget and tax levy, and to repeal conflicting laws and penalties,” the object of which was to relieve the authorities of the city until December, 1876, from.the duty of estimating, levying, and collecting any tax for a sinking fund for the purpose of purchasing any of the bonds issued under the acts mentioned.</p> <p>The petition also alleges that, in further violation of the provisions of the act of 1852, and of the contract with the holders of the bonds, the legislature, on the 6th of March, 1876,.passed another act, designed, as stated in its title, to adjust, regulate, and provide for the bonded debt of the city of New Orleans, and authorize the exchange of its bonds for other bonds to be issued on the plan known as the premium bon'd plan, the avowed object of which was to impair, if possible, the‘obligatiOn of the contract between the bondholders and the city, arid' divest the rights acquired by them under it, by prohibiting the city authorities from levying a tax in any year under the. provisions of the acts of 1852, by shackling the judicial tribunals in the issue of process, and by repealing the provisions of that act. The seventh section is as follows: —</p> <p>“ Sect. 7. Be it further enacted, ¿¡-c., that no tax for the payment of bonds or interest on bonds other than that authorized by the preceding sections [the premium bonds], shall be levied either for the year 1876, or any year or years thereafter; by the city of New Orleans, and that all existing laws requiring or authorizing the city council to levy any tax whatsoever for bonds or interest on bonds, other than said premium bonds, be and the same are hereby repealed ; and it shall be hereafter incompetent for any-court to mandamus the officers of said city to levy and collect any interest tax other than that provided in this act, or in case of such mandamus, by a receiver or otherwise, to direct the levy and collection of any such tax.”</p> <p>The. petition then avers that these acts of the legislature of Louisiana are in. conflict with the Constitution of the United States, in that they impair the obligation of the contract between the bondholders and the city; that nevertheless the authorities, of the city, its mayor and administrators, in disregard of the provisions of the acts of 1852, and in contempt of their duties and of the rights of the relator and other bondholders similarly situated, have refused to perform the duty imposed upon them by those acts for the years 1874, 1875-.-1876, and 1877, to levy a special tax for the payment of the matured coupons and the purchase of bonds; that they have levied upon the. property subject to the levy of such special tax for the payment of the consolidated bonds, other taxes to meet other bonds issued by the city iii disregard of the prohibitory .clauses of sect. 87 of the act of 1852, and the moneys collected have been applied to the payment of those bonds, and other illegal purposes; ■ that the authorities of the city have been notified to levy the special tax required for the years mentioned, but they have refused- to discharge their duty in that particular, and, in place thereof, have sought by all sorts of frivolous and unfounded .technicalities^to contest the validity and integrity of the consolidated bonds; that the relator has demanded payment of the matured coupons held by it, which. was refused, the city authorities answering that there were no. funds out of which they could be paid ; and that the city and the taxable real estate within its limits are liable for the payment of the matured coupons and for the purchase of said bonds to the extent of $650,000 per annum, for.the years 1874, 1875,. 1876, and 1877, less coupons paid for 1874 and 1875:</p> <p>The petitioner, therefore, prays for a mandamus and an injunction; the former, commanding the city authorities to levy the special tax of $650,000 for the years named; and the latter, enjoining them from levying any other tax on real •estate within the limits of the city which is subject to the special tax for the consolidated debt, until the special tax has been levied.</p> <p>Upon the ■ petition, an alternative writ of mandamus was issued, requiring the city authorities to show cause why they should not comply with its prayer.</p> <p>The authorities appeared on the return-day.and excepted to the jurisdiction of the court to grant the writ, on the following grounds:— '</p> <p>1st, That by the provisions of the acts of the legislature — No. 5 of the extra session of 1870, and No, 81 of 1876 — the courts of the State were prohibited from issuing a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to pay any debt not liquidated by judgment, or to levy and collect any interest tax-other than-that provided in act No. 31 of 1876 (the premium bond act).</p> <p>2d, That the duty of the -respondents, by'the city charter and the sixth section of the act No. 31 of 1876, was limited to .the levy and collection of a tax on the assessed value of all property subject to taxation within the city, at a rate not exceeding one and one-half per cent on the dollar, to meet' all expenses of the city government, and to pay the interest, on its bonded debt.</p> <p>3d, That the respondents are expressly forbidden, by said act No. 31 of 1876, from levying the tax demanded for the year 1876, or for any.year afterwards.</p> <p>4th, That the legislature, by act No. 53 of 1874, had suspended the levy and collection of any tax for the sinking fund under the act of 1872 until December, 1876, which, the respoñdents charge, was passed with the' assent of the Southern-Bank.</p> <p>And if the exceptions should be overruled, the respondents, reiterating and pleading the matters contained in them as part of their answer, further add: —</p> <p>5th, That the provisions of the thirty-seventh section of act No. 71 of 1852 are unconstitutional and void, because their object^ is not expressed in the title of the act, as required by art. 118 of the.Constitution of 1845, in force at the time.</p> <p>6th, That the tax provided by the section mentioned .is. unconstitutional and void, and in violation of sect. 127 of the Constitution of 1845,4nd art. 128 of the Constitution of 1852; because, first, it is to be assessed on real estate and slaves, and not on personal property; and, secondly, because the rate per cent of the tax in each municipality is to be in proportion to the indebtedness of each.</p> <p>By a supplementary answer the respondents reiterated -the same objections to the writ in more ample terms.</p> <p>.Various parties, including the State of Louisiana, holders;of premium bonds, owners of real estate in. the city, and taxpayers, were allowed to intervene under the practice which obtains in Louisiana, and various, exhibits, produced by them were made part of the case.</p> <p>In March, 1878, the District Court gave judgment granting a peremptory' writ of mandamus as prayed, and denying the injunction. On appeal to the Supreme Court of the State this judgment was 'reversed, and judgment .entered that the demand of the relator be dismissed, with costs, in both courts. To review this judgment the case is brought to. this court.</p>

Held: that the several amounts cannot be united to make up the sum necessary to give this court jurisdiction. ' Motion to dismiss an appeal from'the District Court of'the Ünfted States for the Northern District of Mississippi. Mr. H. T. Mlett in support of the motion. There was no opposing counsel. Me.

Held: valid. Under the decision in Austin v. The Aldermen, it is valid as to him. If he has debts to be deducted, the case of People v. Weaver ( 100 U. S. 539 ) shows that in taking the steps which this court has held he may take, he can secure that deduction, and when secured the rest of the law remains valid.

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States.for the Northern District of New York. -</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Appeals from the Circuit Court of the United States, for the District of Indiana. The facts are stilted in the opinion of the court.

Held: that the bonds are valid in the hands of a Iona fide holder for value, and that the city is estopped from showing ' that it had imposed certain conditions upon its liability, although the statute declares that' in such an event the bonds should not be binding until such conditions were performed. 2.

Ebbob to tbe Circuit Court of tbe United States for the Eastern District of Missouri. This action, under the local law equivalent to an action of ejectment, involves tbe title to certain real estate in the city of St. Louis, of which Edward Sullivan, a naturalized citizen of the United States, who died intestate in the year 1866, was seized' in fee at the time of his death. Both parties claimed under him.

Held: did hot possess the qualities of negotiable or commercial paper. It also appears, in that case, that the certificate was made payable to a named person “ or bearer,” when the order qf court, printed thereon, directed it to be made payable to such person “ or order.” The language of those two' cases, must be construed fn connection with the particular kind of instrument to which the court referred.

<p>Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Held: that the refusal was proper. 2. If the habits of the insured in the usual, ordinary, and every-day routine of his life were temperate, his representations that he was and always had been a man of temperate habits were not untrue, within the meaning of the policy, although he may have had an attack of delirium tremens from an exceptional over-indulgence.

Held: that the facts did not constitute a waiver of the forfeiture, and if they did,' it was not, under the circumstances, binding. Error to-the Circuit Court- of the'United States for the Southern District of Illinois. This was an action of- assumpsit brought by Amelia Bennecke. to recover' of the- Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company the sum of $2,000 upon a policy of life insurance.

Held: That • imposing the tax without granting any compensation .or indemnity was not a legitimate exercise of the power of dissolving corporations which is reserved ■ in’, a provision of the Code of Louisiana. 2. That the statute and the provision, they were construed and, applied to the circumstances of this case, arer"nVviolation..of the tenth section of the first article of the Constitution of ■ the United States.

Held: that, in a suit by a bona fide holder of the . coupons cut therefrom, a recovery cannot be defeated upon the ground that, in order to pay the principal and interest and the county expenses, 'the assessment must exceed the limitation imposed by sect. 8, art. 9, of the Constitution of 1870. 5.

Duncan & Poey, the libellants, entered into the following charter-party with Woodhouse & Rudd, the claimants : — “ This charter-party, made in the city of New York this thirteenth day of September, in the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy-two, between Messrs. Woodhouse & Rudd, owners of the steamer ‘ Francis Wright,’ of New York, of the burthen of 600 tons or thereabouts, now lying in the harbor of New York, of the first part, and Messrs.

Held: that neither the date when, nor the stage of the cause at which, the petition was filed precluded the removal under the act of March 8, 1875, c. 187.- Jifkins v. Sweetzer ( 102 U. S. 177 ) distinguished, 2. A., and B., his wife, conveyed her separate property to a trustee upon trust for her use during her life, and in remainder in fee for the use of her children living at the time of her death.

Held: That A. had not ah unqualified property in them, but they were subject to a charge in the nature of a mortgage in favor of B., which was binding on the- parties and A.’s assignee in bankruptcy. 2. That the second contract was not fraudulent, within the meaning of the -bankrupt law. Error to the Circuit Court of the -United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania. .-The facts are stated in the

Held: that the offered evidence is competent, and that the plaintiff was not bound to sustain the record by proof that each person voting was thereunto lawfully. entitled; Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for tbe Eastern District of Missouri. The facts are stated in tbe opinion of tbe court.

• Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Wisconsin., ,This was an information, for the forfeiture of • the right, title, and interest' of Severin Schulte in certain real estate on which he carried on the business of a distiller, without having given bond.as required by-law, and with intent to deprive the United States' of the tax on the spirits distilled by him. In the District Court, held by.

This was an action of assumpsit by Hitchcock as indorsee, against Buchanan and Waugh as drawers, of the following bill of exchange: — ' • . • “ Office op Belleville Nail Mill Co., Belleville, Ills., “$5,477.13. Dec. 15th, 1875..- “Four months after date, pay to the order of John Stevens, Jr., cashier, fifty-four hundred and .seventy-seven dollars,. value received, and charge same to account of Belleville Nail Mill Co. “ Wm.

Held: that prima facie proof of hfs liability is furnished by the assessment of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue; but it may be overcome by evidence showing either that the tax. was paid, or that the whole or a part of the spirits in question was not distilled, within the period mentioned. 3.

■ On Dee. 31, 1863, Erellsen sold to Fairex a plantation in St. Charles Parish, in the S.tate of Louisiana, for the consideration of $133,000, of which Fairex paid .$3,000 in cash, and .the residue .he agreed to pay in annual instalments, bearing interest and falling "due • respectively on the first day of May in every year for eleven years.

Held: that on the ownership being shown on the hearing of the foreclosure suit brought against him and' their heirs the bill should be dismissed without- prejudice, the ground of equi-. table relief not having been made out, and the complainant having a complete remedy at law to enforce the payment of the note. Appeals, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Held: that its action in the premises approaches so nearly to an exercise of discretion, that a very clear showing must be made to induce this court to reverse it.' Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota. ■ The case is fully stated in the opinion of the eourt. Mr. Richard L. Ashurst and Mr. Thomas H. Hubbard.,,for the appellant. ■ Mr. Henry J. Horn for the appellee. Me.

<p>• Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio.</p> <p>. William G. Winslow and Hezekiah J. Winslow filed their libel in the proper District Court against the. schooner ■“ S. S. Osborne,” alleging- that they were the owners of the schooner “ American Union,” and that while she was on her voyage on Lake Michigan the “ S. S. Osborne,” ran into her, whereby she suffered damage, and that the collision was caused solely by the negligence and- improper conduct of the “ S. S. Osborne.”</p> <p>The “S. S. Osborne” was seized, but was subsequently released, on Bliss O..Wilcox, the claimánt, entering into the requisite- stipulations. He answered the libel by denying its material allegations, and filed a cross-libel against the “ American Union,” claiming .that she was wholly in fault, and that by the collision the “S. S. Osborne” was damaged. The answer to the cross-libel was filed, and, Dec. 26,1877, the District Court dismissed the cross-libel and rendered a decree against the “ S. S.- Osborne,” from which on the same day.Wilcox appealed. The entry in relation thereto is inserted in the opinion of this court. The Circuit Court, both parties appearing therein, rendered a decree, from which each appéhled'. ■ The remaining facts are stated in the opinion of this court.</p>

<p>The owner of a vessel may, before he or it is sued, institute appropriate proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction, to obtain the benefit of the limitation of liability provided for by sects. 4284 and 4285 of the Revised Statutes.</p>

Held: the result' of which was, that 176 votes were cast in favor of the proposition and 46 against it. Thereupon, the city council passed an ordinance authorizing the subscription of $50,000 to the capital stock of the railway company, and the issue of bonds for the payment of the same. The subscription, was made and the bonds were'delivered.

The Western Union Telegraph Company is a New York corporation engaged in the business of .transmitting telegrams at fixed rates of compensation.

Held: that his bankruptcy cannot be set up by the defendants to bar its further proseem tion in his -name, if either the assignees expressly consent thereto, or. the claim sued on was, four months, before the proceedings, transferred by him in good faith - and for a valuable consideration to a party for whose use and benefit the suit was .'brought.

Held: That'in view of the legislation of Congress thg resolution is the paramount law by which the rights involved are to be determined, and that the company, by accepting its provisions, became'subject to all the limitations and reservations-of power which Congress deemed fit to impose. 2. .That the withdrawal by Congress of its assent is, for the purposes of this case, equivalent to a positive enactment that,…

Held: That the contractor who, pursuant to his bid under the act of Jan. 9,1842 [infra, p. 510), performed the work, acquired, until • he should.be fully paid therefor, a property, right in the rents of the waterpower which- he rendered available, and the State became a trustee to collect and pay them to him. 2.

<p>1. An appeal lies from a decree in equity for costs when they are dirécted to be paid, not by a particular party, bjrt out of a fund in the hands, or under the . control, of the court.</p> <p>2'. A decree made'by a Circuit Court of the United States, directing that the • complainant be paid his costs and expenses out of a fun.d in court, —the fund, in the rrtean time, reriiaimng in the court in course of administration, — is pro tanto a final decree from which, if their amount be sufficient, an appeal will lie.</p> <p>3. A trust estate must bear the necessary .expenses of its administration.</p> <p>4. One jointly interested with others in a common fund, who, in good faith, maintains the necessary litigation to save it from waste and secure its proper - application, is entitled in equity to the reimbursement of his costs as between • solicitor and client, either out of the fitnd itself, or by proportionate contributions from those who receive the benefit of. the litigation.</p> <p>5. Where bonds issued by a corporation are secured by a trust fund which the trustee is wasting or misapplying, or which he refuses or neglects to apply .'to the payment of them, a holder of a portion of them who, in good faith, files a bill to secure a due application of the fund, and succeeds in bringing it under the control of the court for the common benefit of the bond-holders, is entitled to be paid from the fund before its distribution his costs, counsel fees, and necessary expenses of the litigation, that is to say, his costs as between solicitor'and client. A claim, however, for his private expenses, such as travelling fares and hotel bills, or for his own time or personal services, cannot be allowed.</p> <p>6. The practice of allowing to trustees, complainants, and receivers, and their . counsel, large and extravagant counse. fees and commissions payable out of trust funds under the control of the court, commented on and disapproved.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York.</p> <p>On May 19, 1857, letters-patent were granted to Asa Johnson, the inventor, and William Higbie' and Henry Link, his assignees, “ for an improved mode of fastening sheet metal on roofs,” &c.</p> <p>The specification declares the invention to be “a new and useful mode of self-adjusting fastenings for fastening metallic coverings to buildings, and in any and all other places where metals require fastening and tljeir contraction and expansion demand accommodation; ” and there are appended to it five figures.</p> <p>Fig. 1 is a side elevation of a bidding.</p> <p>Fig. 2 is an end elevation or section cut through the roof in the line x x, Fig. 1. ■</p> <p>Fig. 3 is "an end elevation of the self-adjusting fastener.</p> <p>Fig. 4 is a side elevation of the same.</p> <p>Fig. 5 is a plan view of the bottom-plate.'</p> <p>The specification then proceeds as follows: —</p> <p>‘f In the operation of my invention, after sheeting the roof, if the boards do not exceed an inch in thickness, I bóre a hole at the point where I wish to insert the stud, about the size as seen in vertical dotted lines in Fig. 2. The holes may be made larger or smaller to allow for contraction and expansion, so that the studs can move freely in any direction required.</p> <p>“ The bottom-plate is then screwed firmly to the boards by the screws (s) (s) seen in Figs. 2 and 4, and the screw 1 passes through the metallic covering into the stud 2, thus firmly fastening the covering K to the stud, as seen in Fig. 2.</p> <p> </p> <p>“ It will be further seen that the cord 7 passes through the stud 2, Fig. 4, and then through the bottom-plate, and is fastened together as at g, in said Fig., thus always keeping the stud in- an erect position until attached to the metal.</p> <p>“ If the covering contract on a line parallel with the connecting-pin S, the adjustable connecting-rod 2 will move.on it towards one of the flanges 4, when it expands it will move towards the opposite flange, thus moving towards the point of contraction, and from the point of expansion with this metallic covering.</p> <p>“The adjustable stud, in’addition to its parallel and longitudinal movement, is capable of a diagonal movement, thus accommodating itself to any direction required by the metal- contracting or expanding.</p> <p> Tiff 2. </p> <p> </p> <p>“ I contemplate using them as general fasteners when it is necessary to allow for the contraction' and expansion of the material used, not confining myself to buildings only. I may find, in using my adjustable fasteners, it necessary to make some of them, those that are in parallel, lines with the flanges, to, fit up close to the sides of the studs, as seen at 1,1, in Fig. 2, allowing them to move in but one direction on the pin 3, which slides in the slots in the flange's 4, 4.”</p> <p>The claim is thus set forth: — ■</p> <p>“ In the sélf-adjusting fastener as described, for the purpose of attaching metallic coverings to buildings, and accommodating itself to the contraction and expansion of the metal, and for fastening metals in all other places when the contraction and expansion demand accommodation, substantially as set forth, or any mechanical device equivalent thereto.”</p> <p>At the expiration of the original term of the patent, fourteen years, an extension of seven years was granted to Johnson, who subsequently assigned a two-third interest in- his extended letters to Thomas S. Sandford. The original letters were surrendered April 16, 1872, and a reissue of that date was granted.</p> <p>The specification of the reissue describes the invention generally as “ a new and useful mode of self-adjusting fastenings for fastening metallic coverings to buildings, and for use in any and ail other places where metals require fastening, and their contraction add expansion require accommodation.”</p> <p>Then follows a reference to and description of the same five illustrative figures which form part of the specification of the original patent.</p> <p>The specification then proceeds as follows: —</p> <p>“ The principle of my invention consists in connecting the metal to be fastened with a bolt or pin arranged to slide in slotted bearings in the direction of expansion or contraction, said adjustable bolt and its bearings being combined with the materials to be fastened.</p> <p>“I have-found my adjustable fastener peculiarly useful in fastening metallic roofs to buildings, and I proceed to describe its construction, and use.</p> <p>“ In using my self-adjusting fastener for fastening metallic roofs to buildings I connect the sliding bolt or pin with the roof by means of a stud fastened to the same, and I form the side-plates, which cpntain the bearings for the sliding-bolt, in connection with and as flanges of a bottom-plate, which is secured fast to the under side of the wooden sheathing of the building.</p> <p>“In the drawing, 1 indicates the screws for attaching the metallic roof to the- stud, 2 is the stud, 3 is. the adjusting bolt of pin, to which the metallic roof is connected by the stud and screw, said bolt passing through the stud 2 and through the slots of the side-. plates or flanges. 4 4 are the side-plates or flanges, provided with slots, which form the bearings of the adjusting-bolts. 5 is a bottom-plate, used as a convenient means of attaching the side-plates to the wooden sheathing of the building. 6 6 are the slots in the side-plates in which the adjusting-bolt slides. 7 is an india-rubber cord which may be used in applying the adjustable fastener to buildings. It is connected with the stud by being passed through an opening in it. It then passes down on each side of the stud and through an,opening in the bottom-plate,, where it is fastened, ns indicated at g in the drawing, and is used for keeping the stud in an erect position until after the stud had been inserted through the sheathing from below, and until it is attached to the metal roof. Without some contrivance of this kind if would be. difficult in the position indicated to keep the stud in position while the connection was being made.</p> <p>“ S S are screws for attaching the bottom-plate, and with it the side-plates, to the sheathing. G is the sheathing of the roof greatly-enlarged in thickness in proportion, to illustrate the details of the connection of the adjustable fastener to buildings. H is the metallic roofing.</p> <p>“ The method of using the invention in attaching metallic roofing to buildings is as follows: After sheathing the roof, a hole is bored in the sheathing, at the point where the adjustable fastener is to be used, of sufficient size to allow the connecting-stud to move in the samé vfdth the expansion or contraction of the metallic roof. These holes receive the slotted flanges or side-plates 4 4, and they are indicated in the drawing by the letter a. (See Fig. 2.) They should be of the shape and size required by the extent and direction of the contraction and expansion to be allowed for, The flanges or side-plates are inserted in the holes, and the b'ottom-plate is then firmly secured to the boards.or'sheathing G by the screws S S, as seen in Fig. 2. Where .the sheathing is sufficiently thick, a hole may be bored into, it to receive the fastener from above. The side-plate's 4 and adjusting-bolt 3 are. thus connected with the building. • The connection with the metallic roof is then effected by holding the stud in an erect position by means of the rubber cord, and attaching the-stud to the roofing by means of the screw 1. Both the wooden sheathing and the metallic, roof are thus connected to the self-adjusting mechanism, consisting of the slotted side-plates and the bolt, which slides in them.</p> <p>“It is obvious that if the metal of the roofing contracts or expands in a line with the slots in the side-plates that the bolt will adjust itself to such contraction or expansion by sliding in the slots in the proper direction.</p> <p>“ On the other hand, in cases where the line of contraction or expansion may be diagonal, or at right angles to' the line of the slots in the side-plates, the connecting-stud is arranged to slide upon the adjusting-bolt, as it is shown it may do in Figs. 2 and 3. Where, however, the movement is only sensible in the direction of the slots, the side-plates are made to fit up close, as seen at Fig. 2 in the illustrations marked *, where the side-plates or flanges are seen in cross-section, so that the only practical adjustability shall be in the direction of the slots.</p> <p>“ I contemplate using my invention as a general fastener where it is necessary to allow for the contraction and expansion of the material used, not confining • myself to buildings only.”</p> <p>The first claim of the reissue is substantially identical with •the one claim of the original patent-. The second claim of the reissue is as follows: —</p> <p>“ I claim, in combination with the adjusting-bolt and slotted side-plates, suitably connected to and combined with the materials to be fastened together for the purpose of accommodating the expansion and contraction of such materials with reference to each other, substantially as specified.”</p> <p>The bill in this case was filed by said Johnson and Sandford to restrain- the Flushing and North Side Railroad Company from infringing the second claim of the reissued letters-patent, by using what is commonly known as the fish-plate joint for uniting the ends of railroad rails. It consists of two iron, plates of proper shape and size to fit the “web,” which is the upright portion of the rail between its head and base. The .plates are fastened one on each side of and near the ends of two abutting rails by means of bolts and nuts, the bolts passing through corresponding holes formed in both the plates and rails. In order to. permit the rails to expand and contract with the changes in temperature, théir ends áre not allowed to form a close joint, and the holes, either in the fish-plates or in the rails, are made larger than the bolts, and are elongated in the direction- of the length of the rails. By these means the expansion and contraction of the rails is “compensated” without injury to the joint.</p> <p>The answer- denies the alleged infringement, and sets up as defences the invalidity of the reissued letters, because, as was alleged, the original wére not lawfully surrendered, and the want of novelty in the invention covered by the second claim ■ of the reissue. ;</p> <p>The Circuit- Court dismissed the bill, holding that the reissued letters were void because they-were not for the Same-invention as that described- in the original, and the complainants appealed.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

This is -a bill in equity, filed Jan. 29,' 1874, by Charles Guidet, against the city of Brooklyn, wherein he alleges that the defendant was then making and using a. stone pavement which, in whole or in • part, was substantially the same in construction and operation as that for which , reissued letters-patent No. 4106, bearing date Aug. 23, 1870, were granted to him. • The prayer of the bill is for an injunction and account..

Held: that the action will not lie, the defendants not being liable for an 'expression of opinion, however fallacious, in regard to property the value of which depends upon contingencies that may never occur, or developments the t may never be made. Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York. The facts are stated ,in the

Held: on demurrer to the original bill, that there could be no recovery in this suit for the amount illegally exacted and paid, because an action at law was the appropriate and adequate remedy for that purpose, and in that the court was probably right. If, however, the bill presents no ground for the injunction prayed, the prayer for recovery of a moneyed decreé becomes immaterial. .

The first case is an appeal from the Circuit Court of the .United States for the Northern District of Illinois, and the second and third are appeals from' the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Illinois. By stipulation of the parties these cases were argued together' as one- case.

Held: that under the act of March 3, 1875, c. 137, the case is not removable to the Circuit Court. Error to tbe Circuit Court of the United Statés for the Eastern District of New 'York. The case is fully stated in the

Held: in Insurance Company v. Comstock ( 16 Wall. 258 ), followed in Railroad Company v. Wiswall (28 id. 507), that if a Circuit Court refused to take jurisdiction of a suit which had been properly removed, the remedy was by mandamus from this court " to compel the Circuit Court to proceed to a final judgment or decree,” and not by writ of error'’or appeal.- This was 'on the authority of Ex parte Bradstreet ( 7 Pet. 633…

Held: that the improvement is patentable, and that letters-patent No. 130,961, dated Aug. 27, 1872, granted to .him therefor are valid. 7. Of the two original inventors, the first will be entitled to letters-patent, unless ■ the other puts the invention into public usé more than two years before the application for them. 8.

Held: that the statute does not, by thus exempting those shares from seizure., impair the obligation of any contract, as they merely represent the city’s ownership in the water-works which was, before the enactment of the statute, exempt from seizure and sale. 3. The city may, by a suit in equity, restrain its execution creditors from selling those shares.

Ebbob to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District) of Louisiana.

Certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern’ District of New York.

■ Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of California. . ■ This was an action for the possession of a tract of land confining three hundred and twenty acres, situated, in the town of Sutter, 'county of Sacramento, and State of California. The complaint 'is in the usual form for the' recovery of land under the system of procedure which obtains in California.

<p>Appeal from' the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern -District of Missouri:</p> <p>The case-is stated in the .opinion of the court.</p>

<p>1. A paymaster in the army,' from whom puhlie funds, had been stolen, the amount of which he subsequently paid to his chief paymaster, pursuant to the order of the Paymaster-General, filed his petition in the Court of Claims for relief” under sects. 1059 and 1062 of'the Revised Statutes. Meld, that the limitation of six years prescribed" by sect. 1069 is applicable to the case.</p> <p>2. United Slates v. Clark (96 U. S. .37) distinguished.</p>

<p>The State of Louisiana provided for funding her bonds at reduced rateé and on certain terms.. A subsequent Statute-prohibits the funding of all questionable obligations, among whieh are specially designated those issued in aid of the construction of a certain canal, until, by a final decree of the Supreme Court, “they have been declared legal and valid obligations against the State of Louisiana, and .that the same were issued in strict conformity to law, and not in violation of the. Constitution of this State, or of the United States; and- for a valid consideration.” A., a holder of the canal bonds, filed his bill praying for- such a decree. .The court decided that the statute did not allow them to be funded; they not being valid obligations-in the hands of the first taker, and that the Tatter occupied as good a position as a bona fide holder. Held,- that this not being an action to recover the .contents, of the bonds, and A. having the same right to enforce payment as he ever possessed, the statute as thus construed does not impair the obligation of. any contract.</p>

<p>1. The term “ torts,” when used in reference to admiralty jurisdiction, embrace's not only wrongs committed by direct force, but such as are suffered in consequence of negligence or malfeasance, where the remedy at common law is by an action on the case.</p> <p>2. The jurisdiction in admiralty is not ousted by the fact that, .when the wrong • was dong on the vessel by the. negligence of her master, she had completed - her voyage and was securely moored at the wharf where her cargo was about to be discharged. ' .</p>

Held: that one-third of the sum. paid by the insurer's must be deducted from the amount to' be recovered. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana. The case is stated in the

<p>Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Tirginia.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of the Territory of Wyoming. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Held: or by any such laws hereafter enacted which’ may be adopted by general rules of such Circuit or District Court, and such courts may from time to time, by general rules, adopt such State laws as may hereafter be in force in such State in relation to remedies upon judgments, as aforesaid, by execution or otherwise.” •This provision of the Revised Statutes merely embodies and extends the principle contained in the…

Held: That his assignors, who claim an interest in the respective tracts, are, with the county and its officers, necessary parties, although by the terms of the contract the governor of the State was to execute the conveyance. 2. That the value of the matter in dispute between the complainant and the county is the amount so tendered. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the .District of Iowa.

<p>1. Whether a seeming act of the legislature is or is hot a law, is a judicial question to be determined by the court, and not a question of fact to be tried by a jury.</p> <p>2. The construction uniformly given to the Constitution of a State by its highest court is binding on the courts of the United States as a rule of decision.</p> <p>3. An act of the legislature of a State, which has been held by its highest court not to be a statute of that State, because never passed as its Constitution requires, cannot be held by the courts of the United States, upon the same evidence between different parties, to be a law of the State, although referred to in later statutes of the State as an existing law, and assumed to be such in earlier cases in the State court, in which its validity was not, and by the settled practice of that court could not be, controverted.</p> <p>4. The act of the General Assembly of Illinois of Feb. 18, 1857, purporting to authorize the issue of certain municipal bonds, is of no force or effect, by-reason of its not appearing by the legislative journals to have been passed as required by the Constitution of 1818.</p> <p>5. Under the statute of Illinois of Feb. 12, .1819, copies of the original daily journals kept by the clerks of each house of the legislature, made by persons contracted with or employed for the purpose, in well-bound books furnislied by the secretary of state, and afterwards deposited and kept in his office, are official records, copies of which certified by him are competent evidence.</p> <p>6. The printed journals of either house of a legislature, published in obedience to law, are competent- evidence of its proceedings.</p>

Held: that there were no averments in the petition showing a title to equitable .relief-founded oil the view that the written contract did not set forth'the true agreement, and no. facts alleged showing a right to recover on the reformed agreement.

<p>1. Under the act of July 14, 1870, c. 255, the proprietor of friction-matches, who' furnished his own- dies, was entitled to a commission of ten per cent, payable in money upon the amount of adhesive stamps over $500 which he at any one time purchased for his own-'use from the Bureau of Internal Revenue.</p> <p>2. The provisions of the .statute being clear to that effect, he is entitled to recover pursuant tbf seto, although a different contemporaneous construction of them was givei by the bureau, it not appearing that he acquiesced therein.</p>

Held: that be cannot, under a habeas corpus, be discharged from imprisonment if the court had jurisdiction to try him for the offence and was authorized to render the sentence whereof be complains. Sed qimre, can this court order in bis behalf the issue of that writ 1 2.

Rule to show cause why an,attachment should not issue against the defendant in error, for having sued out executions upon the judgments below after supersedeas bonds in due form and approved security had been filed within the prescribed time.

' Appeal from the Circuit Court of the. United States .for the Western District of Texas. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>1. The recital in the contract (infra, p. 711), that the vendors “ hereby deliver said machines at the places named in the list ” to the vendee, passes to. him the title and right of possession, but does not prove a delivery of actual possession.</p> <p>2. If the machines were not delivered at tlw stipulated time and places, or were not then in a proper condition, proof that they were subsequently delivered, or that the vendee, after accepting them, permitted the vendors to make the requisite repairs and additions thereto, is admissible to reduce his damages for a breach of the contract.</p> <p>3. In case of a total failure by the vendors to perform the contract, the vendee is entitled to. recover the amount wherewith he, at the time of the breach, could have purchased machines of equal value; if 'those delivered were defective, the measure of his damages is the actual cost of supplying the deficiency.</p>

Held: That A., being neither a party nor a privy to the suit of C. against the firm, and it not appearing that notice of its pendency was ever given to him or any agent of the government, he is not'bound by the judgment there rendered. 2.

Held: that the provision in the State. Constitution of 1865, art. 11, sect. 14, prohibiting a county from becoming a stockholder in or loaning its credit to a corporation without a vote of the people, was intended as a limitation on future legislation only, and did not- operate to repeal enabling acts in existence when the Constitution took effect.

<p>1. Where judgment has been duly obtained in Missouri against a county upon coupons detached from its bonds, no defence which questions their validity can be pleaded to a mandamus commanding the county-court to pay the judgment from moneys in the treasury, or raise the means therefor by the levy of a special tax.</p> <p>2. If not restrained by some valid special limitation upon the exercise of its taxing power, a county, authorized by law to contract an extraordinary debt by the issue of negotiable securities, can-levy a tax sufficient to meet the principal and interest,' as they respectively mature. United States v. New Orleans (99 U. S. 582) cited upon this point and approved.</p> <p>8. A general law confining the annual tax “to defray the. expenses of the county” to a fixed per centum is not applicable to such a debt.</p> <p>4. After the debt was created, laws passed, depriving the county court of the - requisite power to levy the tax which it possessed when tbe bonds were issued, are invalid.</p>

This case depends upon the construction of an act of the legislature of Kansas, approved March 2, 1872. Laws of Kansas, 1872, p. 110.

<p>Appeal from tbe Circuit Court of tbe United States for tbe ■ District of Louisiana.</p> <p>Tbe óacts are-stated in tbe opinion of tbe court.</p>

<p>1. A party, having the absolute ownership of a patented machine, has the right either to use it during the extended term of the letters-patent, or t.o transfer such ownership and right to another.</p> <p>2. A license for the exclusive use of such a machine within certain territory does not continue longer than the term of the original letters.</p> <p>3. A licensee cannot, as such, sue for an infringement, but must assert his rights in the name of'the original patentee.'</p> <p>4. Where the matter in controversy is merely the costs of suit, an appeal from-the decree'in which they were taxed will not be considered.</p>

Held: that this court has jurisdiction where the aggregate . amount claimed is more than $5,000 in excess of the value of the vessel, Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan. The “Mamie,” a small pleasure-yacht propelled by steam, was run down and sunk by the steamer “ Garland ” in the Detroit River, July 22, 1880. More than fourteen passengers on the “ Mamie ” were drowned.