Volume 107 — United States Reports

<p>The court denies an application for rehearing in this case, decided at the present term, 106 IT. S. 327.</p>

Held: That, according to the law then in force in the District of Columbia, the *4 bill not being sufficient to authorize the relief granted, the decree does not give the required effect to the judgment, and this court has jurisdiction to re-examine it on a writ of error. 2. That A., by accepting the amount so paid, is not estopped from prosecuting that writ.

Held: That persons to whom a corporation pledges its stock as collateral security are within the exemption of the statute. 2. That certificates of the stock absolute on their face, issued in trust or as collateral security to a creditor, may be shown to be so held by evidence in pais. 3.

Held: that, in order to constitute an inspection law, an examination of the quality of the article itself is not necessary ; but that to prepare the products of a State for exportation it may be necessary that such products should be put in packages of a certain form, and of certain prescribed dimensions, either on account of the nature and character of such products, or to enable the State to identify the products of its…

<p>Error to tbe Circuit Court of tbe United States for tbe Southern District of New York.</p> <p>The case is fully stated in tbe opinion of tbe court.</p>

Held: that he is not entitled to take under both acts. Error to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.

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

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

Held: in view of the description in the text of the specification, and of the drawing, Figure 3, to necessarily claim arbors which are tapped into two or more, plates, or whether that claim excludes as a part of it screw-threads cut on the arbors, is not material to this case. If the former, the appellees are not shown to have used arbors with screw-threads on any part of the arbor that is within the,plates.

Tbis is an action for breach of two alleged contracts of the Michigan Central Railroad Company with the plaintiff, Paris. Myrick, each to carry for him two hundred and two head of cattle from Chicago to Philadelphia, and there deliver them, to his order. It arises out of these facts: Myrick was in 1877 engaged, at Chicago, in the business of buying cattle, sometimes on his own account and sometimes for other’s, and forwarding them by railway to Philadelphia.

Held: upon the authority of Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303 (decided on the first day of March, 1880), that so much of the statute of Kentucky “ as excludes all persons other than white men from service on juries is unconstitutional, and that no person can be lawfully excluded from any jury on account of his race or color.” The learned court then proceeded: “This question has not been heretofore passed on by this…

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

Held: that neither he nor his sureties can defeat a recovery by setting up irregularities in the proceedings by which the entry of the lands was allowed. ' Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota. This was an action -brought against George F. Potter "and his sureties on his official bond as receiver of public moneys in the Pembina land district in the Territory of Dakota.

<p>1, Claims 1, 8, 9,11,12,14,16, and 19 of reissued letters-patent No. 2224, granted April 10, 1866, to Reuben Holfheins, for an “improvement in harvesters,” the original, No. 35,315, having been granted to him May 20, 1862; .-and claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 9 of reissued letters-patent No. 2490, granted Eeb. 19, 1867, to him, for an “improvement in harvesters,” the original, No. 40,481, having been granted to him Nov. 3, 1863, and reissued in two divisions, one, No. 1888, Eeb. 28, 1865, and the other, No. 2102, Nov. 7,' 1865; and No. 2490 having been issued on the surrender of No. 2102, — considered; and the difference between the specifications and the drawings of No. 35,315 and those of No. 2224, and that between the raking apparatus and rake-support of No. 2224 and those of the defendants, pointed out.</p> <p>2. There is no warrant in No. 35,315 f,or locating the rake-support, or any part of it, on the finger-beam, and as each of the above-named claims of No. 2224 has, as an element, either a rake, or a rake and reel, mounted on, or attached to, the cutting apparatus or the finger-beam, No. 35,315 could not lawfully be reissued with those claims.</p> <p>3 The defendants devised a new arrangement of rake, which made it possible to mount a rake-support on the heel of the finger-beam, where the rake-support of No. 2224 could not he mounted. The difference between the yielding belt-tightener of No. 2224 and their arrangement for driving the raking apparatus pointed out, and the latter held not to be a mechanical equivalent for the former.</p> <p>4. No. 40,481 negatives the idea of mounting the rake-post on the finger-beam, while an element in claim 1 of No. 2490 is the mounting of the raking mechanism on the finger-beam. In No. 2490, a driver’s seat mounted on the main frame, so as to enable the driver to ride on the machine while the rake is in operation, is an element in claims 1 and 9, while the driver’s seat in No. 40,481 is not, and cannot be, in such a position that the driver can ride on the seat while the rake is in operation.</p> <p>5. The raking apparatus is an element in claims 2, 7, and 9 of No. 2490, and, in view of the differences between the two machines, in the construction of the raking mechanism and the arrangement and location of the rake-post, the rake of claims 2, 7, and 9 is to be construed to be such a rake, and one so arranged, on a rake-post so mounted, as is shown and described in the specification, and thus does not include the defendants’ raking mechanism or rake-post.</p> <p>6. The driving device in claims 6 and 7 of No. 2490 held not to include the defendants’ driving device, the former being an extensible tumbling shaft and the latter a chain belt with open links, and patentability or invention inhering only in the device and not in its location.</p> <p>7. No cause of action is established against the defendants on either of the patents sued on.</p>

Held: That this provision does not require the title of an act to set forth a detailed statement, or an index or abstract, of its contents; nor does it prevent uniting in the same act numerous provisions having one general object fairly indicated by its title. 2.

<p>Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Held: that this was a charitable gift, valid against the donor’s heirs and next of kin, although the institution was neither established nor incorporated in the lifetime of the donor or óf Allen. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri. The case is stated in the

Held: that under the Code of Georgia of 1873, sect. 3157, the charitable purposes named in the first and third conditions were good charitable uses, sufficiently defined; that the trustees were capable of taking the devise, and that its validity was not impaired, by the conditions subsequent. 7..

Atlantic Works v. Brady, 107 U.S. 192 (1883), is a patent infringement decision of the United States Supreme Court, noted for this criticism of allowing patents on trivial inventions that encourage speculators: The design of the patent laws is to reward those who make some substantial discovery or invention which adds to our knowledge and makes a step in advance in the useful arts. Such inventors are worthy of all favor. It was never the object of those laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade of an idea. . . . Such an indiscriminate creation of exclusive privileges tends rather to obstruct than to stimulate invention.

<p>1. An assignee of a chose in action, or any other cestui que trust, cannot, merely on the ground that his interest is an equitable one, proceed in a court of equity-to recover his demand. Háyward v. Andrews, 106 U. S. 672, cited upon this point and approved.</p> <p>2. The courts of the United States especially, in view of the act of Congress declaring that suits in equity shall not be sustained where there is a. plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law, should enforce this rule.</p> <p>3. Certain parties holding bonds secured by a mortgage filed their bill to recover moneys alleged to be due on a contract which the city of Memphis made with the mortgagor, and which was assigned in the mortgage as part of the security for the bonds, SpM; that the bill will not lie, the demand against the city being cognizable at law in the name of the mortgagor, and’ no special circumstances shown for a resort to equity.</p>

<p>1. Dutiable goods cannot lawfully be imported in the foreign mail under the International Postal Treaty of Berne of Oct. 9, 1874. 19 Stat. 677.</p> <p>2. Such goods are, in the hands of the receiver of them from the post-office, subject to seizure; and the fact that there was no intent on the part of the sender or the receiver of them-to defraud the United States of the •duty, does not render the customs officer liable to an action for making .the seizure.</p>

Held: that as to this case the new law was an ex post facto law, within the meaning of sect. Í0, art. 1, of the Constitution of the United States, and that he could not be again tried for murder in the first degree. 2. The history of the x post facto, clause of the Constitution reviewed in' connection with its adoption 'as a part of the Constitution, and with its subsequent construction by the Federal and the State courts.

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion , of the court.</p>

Held: That although not strictly regular to grant a rule to show cause why an attorney should not be struck off the roll, without an affidavit makiug.charges against him, yet that, under the special circumstances of this case, the want of such affidavit did not render the proceeding void-as coram non judice. 2. That the acts charged against the attorney constituted. sufficient ground for striking his name from the roll. 3.

Motion to dismiss a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State of. Illinois. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

Phelps Brothers & Co. imported, August, 1876, from foreign parts into the port of New York 5,861 boxes of lemons, the value of which at the market when and where they were purchased was $24,006. ‘ The duty on them, at twenty per cent ad valorem, was $4,801.20, the payment of which was admitted by the United States except $1,151.60, to recover which sum this action was brought against the importers in the proper District Court of the United States.

Tredway and Kettelman, citizens of California, having made two negotiable promissory notes to McLaughlin, a citizen of that State, executed, to secure the payment of them, to him a mortgage upon lands there situate. The notes were assigned to Sanger, a citizen of Pennsylvania, who filed in the court below his bill of foreclosure against Tredway and Kettelman. They set up by plea that the assignment of the notes was merely colorable, in order to give that court jurisdiction.

Held: that - the objection was properly sustained. 3.

Held: that the society to which by reason of such occupation a patent had been issued held the title to such portions in trust for the parties claiming respectively under the donation and the town-site acts. 3. Prior to the said act of Sept. 27, 1850, no person could, by entry or preemption settlement, acquire as against the United States any right or title to public land in Oregon.

Held: That in view of that decision, the contract- being unauthorized only so far as it relates to the time and mode of paying the purchase-money, and the title to the lands having passed by the conveyance, the county holds that title as a trustee for the benefit of B., and that he is entitled to the relief prayed for. 2.

, The statutes of Arkansas contain the following provisions: — “ Sect. 385.

Held: that the section provides for equality of taxation; that is to say, that the property of the ferry company shall be valued and taxed by the same rule as other like property, and be subject to the.same exactions and forfeitures, but the company is not exempted from any license tax on its ferry-boats which the State or a municipal corporation thereunto authorized might impose. 2.

Held: that these words must be rejected, and the bond construed as having its ordinary and proper legal effect, the judge taking jt having no right to exact such an addition to the condition of an appeal and supersedeas. 8! This case distinguished from those in which official bonds, and bonds given to the government for the purpose of enjoying some office or privilege, have been sustained as contracts at common law.

Held: that the judgment was not erroneous. Appeal from tbe Court of Claims. The case is stated in the

<p>A party who, under sect. 4 of the act of Aug. 5,1861, c.. 45, is entitled to the drawback there mentioned may, when payment, thereof has been,refused, maintain a suit therefor in the Court of Claims against the United States.</p>

<p>The rank and pay of retired officers of the army are subject to the control of Congress.</p>

Held: that the master had no authority to pledge the cargo without the consent of the shipper or the consignee. 4. Although the bottomry bond cannot be enforced against the cargo, the latter will not be held in that suit for any charges which the vessel may have thereon, where a claim for them is not made in the libel. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

Held: that no Federal question was raised by the decision. 2.

Merriam brought suit in the Court of Claims against the United States to recover damages for their breach of a contract by which he agreed to sell and deliver, and they to receive and pay for, a quantity of oats. His petition was dismissed, and he appealed.

This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court overruling a general demurrer to a bill filed by the United States against the Cook County National Bank of Chicago, 111., and Augustus H. Burley, its receiver. The facts, as stated in the bill, are briefly as follows : Previously to 1872, the bank was formed under the acts of Congress authorizing the organization of national banks, and was designated as a depositary of moneys of the United States. .

Ebbob to' the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Indiana. This was an action by McDaniels against the Wabash Railway Company to recover damages for injuries he sustained by reason of a collision of two of its freight trains, which took place on the night of Aug. 17, 1877, near Wabash, Indiana. There was a verdict in his favor. The court refused to set it aside, and, judgment having been rendered thereon, the company brought this writ of error.

Held: that the finding of that fact by the department is conclusive.. 3. A person is not entitled, under existing statutes, to more than- one such "preemptive right,” nor, after filing a declaratory statement for one tract, can he file such a statement for another tract. ■ Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Nebraska. . The case is stated in the

Held: that the act of 1877 was a constitutional exercise of the power of amendment reserved in the act of 1851; that the owner of the land wás estopped to deny the existence of the corporation, the setting apart of the whole ninety acres as a cemetery, ajid the right of the lot-holders to elect a majority of the trustees; and that he wa3 in equity bound to convey the whole tract to the corporation in fee, and to account…

Held: that the legal title was in..the trustee, under the second trust deed, and that the note thereby secured was entitled to priority of payment out of the land. 2.

Held: that the steamer is not liable. Appeal from tbe Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. The facts are stated in the

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

Held: that the decree for the complainant will not be reversed on such an objection raised here for the first ' time. 2.

Held: canvassed, and returned as other regular town elections.” Afterwards, on Feb. 24, 1869, another act was passed to amend the act to incorporate the Illinois Southeastern Railway Company, sect. 10 of which was as follows: — “ Sect. 10.

<p>The Circuit Court cannot take jurisdiction of a suit removed from a State court under- the third subdivision of sect. 639 of the Revised Statutes, on account of “prejudice or local influeneé",” unless all the necessary parties on One side of the suit are citizens of different States from those on the other.</p>

Held: that they are valid obligations of the city. Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Illinois.' The case is stated in the

Held: That the county cannot set up that the lands were disposed of contrary to the provisions of the said act of 1850. 2.

Held: That as by force of the transaction the city was bound to refund the moneys he paid it in consideration of its void bonds, and as the act, by confirming them, merely recognizes the existence of that obligation, and provides a medium for enforcing it according to the original intention of the parties, no new corporate powers were thereby conferred. 2.

Held: and sjiall give notice thereof in one or more newspapers published in North Alabama; and said elections shall be held at the same time both in this State and in Tennessee.” The fifth section provides that “ the moneys subscribed by the citizens of Alabama, whether by the State, counties, corporations or individuals, shall first be applied to the construction of the road within the limits of the State of Alabama, and…

<p>Where the object of a suit in chancery is the recovery of the damages which the complainant alleges that he has sustained by reason of an unlawful and fraudulent conspiracy to cheat him out of his interest in an original invention, which is the subject-matter of the controversy, the bill should be dismissed, as his remedy is at law.</p>

This appeal was taken because of a difference of opinion between the circuit judge and the district judge holding the Circuit Court as to a matter decided, and the facts on which the questions certified depend may be stated as follows: — On the 7th of October, 1871, the 'Cairo and St. Louis Railroad Company mortgaged its property, franchises, tolls, incomes, and profits to the Union Trust Company of New York, to secure an issue of bonds amounting in tbe aggregate to…

<p>An assignment of such. claims as are mentioned in Union Trust Company v. Souther, ante, p. 591, passes the right of the original holder to payment out of the fund in the hands of the receiver. ■</p>

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Held: that Basket by such indorsement and delivery acquired no title to or interest in the fund. 3. An appeal will not be dismissed by reason of the omission of certain persons who were parties to the suit in the court below, if they have no interest in maintaining or reversing the decree. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Indiana.

Held: that laces and insertings composed wholly of cotton, and bleached or dyed, were dutiable at twenty-four per cent, under the act of 1857'. 2. The designations qualified by the word “ cotton,” in the act of 1846, are designations of articles by special description, as contradistinguished from designations by a commercial name or a name of trade, and are designations of quality and material. 3.

<p>1. Where a collector of customs brings a writ of error to review a judgment recovered against him for moneys exacted by and paid to him on entries, this court will, if it affirms the judgment, allow interest on it, under rule 23.</p> <p>2. In such a case, the “ final judgment,” the amount whereof is payable under sect. 989 of the Revised Statutes, is that rendered by the court below pursuant to the mandate of this court.</p>

<p>Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>A State court, in which an action against a bankrupt upon a debt provable in bankruptcy is pending, must, on his application under sect. 5106 of the Revised Statutes, stay all proceedings to await the determination of the court in bankruptcy on the question of his discharge, unless unreasonable delay on his part in endeavoring to obtain his discharge is shown, or the court in bankruptcy gives leave to proceed to judgment for the purpose of ascertaining the amount due; even if an attachment has been sued out in the. action more than four months before tire commencement of the proceedings in bankruptcy, and has been dissolved by giving bond with sureties to pay the amount of the judgment which might be recovered. And if the highest court of the State denies the application, and renders final judgment against the bankrupt, he may, although he has since obtained his certificate of discharge, bring a writ of error, and his assignee may be heard here in support of the writ.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Held: that the reissue is valid for the old claim only; and is not infringed by the use of the fan, spout, meal chest with its conveying shaft, elevator, and dust room, without any conveying shaft in the dust room, or other mechanism performing the same function. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York. The case is stated in the

This was a suit brought by John B. Slawson against the Grand Street, Prospect Park, and Flatbush Railroad Company, to restrain the infringement of two patents, one granted to him as inventor, and the other held and owned by him as an assignee. The one first mentioned is a reissue, No. 4240, dated Jan. 24, 1871.

Held: that “ when the offence is plainly statutory, it is, ¡ as a general rule, sufficient in the indictment to charge the defendant with acts coming within the statutory description in the substantial words of the statute, without any further expansion of the matter.’ . . .

Certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri. • The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>1. The Chicago River and its branches, although lying within the limits of the State of Illinois, are navigable waters of the United States over which Congress, in the exercise of its power under the, commerce, clause of the Constitution, may exercise control to the extent necessary to protect, preserve, and improve their free navigation; but until that body acts, the State-has plenary authority over bridges across them, and may vest, in Chicago jurisdiction over the construction, repair, and use of 'those bridges within the city. ’</p> <p>2. There is nothing in the ordinance of July 13,1787, or'in the subsequent legislation of Congress, that precludes the State from exercising that authority.</p>

Held: that the character of the charges must be determined by the ordinance itself; and as it on its face imposed them for the use of the .wharf only, and not for entering the port or lying at anchor in the river, the court, though it might deem them unreasonable and exorbitant, will not entertain an averment that they were intended as a duty of tonnage, nor inquire into the secret purpose of the body imposing them. 2.

Held: That the ordinance forbade the payment of the interest due January, 1880, and withdrew from the officers of the State the means of carrying her contract into effect. 2.

Held: that said sect. 4 furnishes an adequate and efficacious remedy substantially equivalent to that which existed at the date when the coupons were issued, whereby the rights of the holder of them, in case the collector refuses to receive them for taxes, can be maintained and enforced, and that the obligation of his contract with the State is not thereby impaired, *770 3.