BOTES 011' DEOISIONS.
861
BID of Lading-Negotiability. POLLARD 'V. VINTON. Supreme court of the United States, October term, .1.881, in error to the circuit court for the district of Kentucky, and affirming the judgment. Miller, J. A bill of lading is at once a receipt and a contract; it is an acknowledgment of the receipt of property on board the vessel, a contract to carry safely and deliver. The receipt of the goods lies at the foundation of the contract to carry and deliver, and if no goods are received there can be no valid contract to carry or to deliver. The person to whom such a bill of lading is first delivered cannot hold the signer responsible for goods not received by the carrier, as neither the master of the vessel . nor the shipping agent has authority to give a bill of lading for goods or cargo not received for shipment. Such a bill of lading. is void in the hands of a third person who may have afterwards· in good faith .taken it and advanced money on ,it. T. Ellery Anderson, for plaintiffs in errror. B. H. Bristow, for defendants in error. The cases cited in the opinion were: The Freeman ·· Bucktngham, 18 How. 182; Grant v. Norway, 10 Com. B. 665; Hubbersty v. Ward, 8 Exch. 330; Goleman v. Riches, 16 Com. B. 104; Walter v. Brewerj 11 Mass; 99. See, also, McLean v. Fleming, Law Rep. 2. H. L. 128. That a bill of lading is to be regarded in a double aspect, as a receipt and as a contract, see Good· rich v. Norris, Abb. Adm. 196; The Delaware, 14 Wall. 601; Blaikie v. Stembridge, 6 Com. B. (N,' S.) 894; Bates v. Todd, 1 Moody & R. 106; Berkley v. Wattling, 7 Adol. & E. 29; Wayland v. Mosely, 5 Ala. 430; Brown v. Byrne, 3 Ellis & B. 702; but compare Knox v. The Ninetta, Crabbe, 534. As a receipt, its statements are prima lame evidence only, and may be explained by parol evidence. Desty, Ship. & Adm. § 220, citing many cases.
Patents-Ownership-Extended Term-License. THE UNION PAPER BAG MACH. Co. 11. NUON, (two cases.) NIXON 11. THEU. P. B. M. Co., (two cases.) These cases were appeals from the circuit court for the southern district of Ohio, and were decided March 6, 1882, in the supreme court of the United States. Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court. The right of an owner of a patented machine, without any conditions attached to his ownership, to continue the use ot his machine' during an extended term of the patent, is well settled; and his power to sell the machine and transfer the accompanying right of use is an incident of unrestricted ownership. Licensees of a patent cannot sue for an infringement. All their rights must be enforced through or in the name of the patentee, and where the license ceases when the term expired, it follows that during the extended term, no questions can arise under the license. The licensees take their title subject to the rights of the unrestricted owner. A decree will not be reviewed on appeal for the mere purpose of settling the costs. Goo. Harding, for Union Paper Bag Mach. Co. E. W. Kittredge and Jas. Moore, for Nixon et al. The cases cited in the opinion were: Rloomer v. McQuewan, 14 trow. 539; Chaffee v. Boston Belting Co. 22 How. 223; Mitchell v. Hawley, 16 Wall.
852
FEDERAL REPORTER.
547; Adams v. Burke, 17 Wall. 445; Littlefield v. Perry, 21 Wall. 223. As to appeals: Canter v. Amer. & O. Ins. Co. 3 Pet. 307 j Elastic .r'aul'ic Co. v. Smith, 100 U. S. 110. \
Judgment on Special Findings-Coverture-Disability from. COLLINS 'V. RILEY. This was an action brought up to the supreme court in error t{) the district court for the district of West Virginia. The defendant in error, claiming to be the owner of large tracts of land, brought an action to recover the possession from the plaintiffs in error. A trial was had before It jnry, which resulted in a verdict for the defendants, which verdict was, on motion, set aside and a new trial had, upon which the jury brought in a special verdict for the plaintiff. The case was heard on a writ of error, and the supreme court, at the October term of 1881, rendered its decision affirming the judgment of the lower court. Harlan, J. Where the jury find a special verdict, in an action for the possession of lands, the court may enter judgment 011 such finding for the plaintiff as to certain portions, and for the defendant, all a general finding, as to other portions of the land. The adverse holding or possession of land for the statutory period will not bar the right to bring an action for its recovery while a party is under the disability of coverture, even though the remedy may be barred as to her husband. Patent Rights-Subject to Debt of Patentee. AGER 'V. MURRAY. In this case it was decided, at the October term, 1881, by Mr. Justice (}ray, that a patent right may be subjected by bill in equity to the payment of a judgment debt of the patentee. The cases cited in the opinion were: Hesse v. Stevenson, 3 Bas. & P. 565; Longman v. Tripp, 2 New Rep. 67; Bloxam v. Elsee, 1 Car. & P. 558; Mawman v. Tegg, 21{ussell, 385; Edelsten v. Vick, 11 Hare, 78; Hudson v. Osborne, 39 L. J. (N. S.) Ch. 79; MeDermutt v. Strong, 4 Johns. Ch. 687; Spader v. Davis, 5 Johns. Ch. 280; Edmeston v. Lyde, 1 Paige, 637; Wiggin v. Heywood, 118 Mass. 514; Sparhawk v. Cloon, 125 Mass. 263; Daniels v. Eldredge, 125 Mass. 356; Drake v. Rice, 130 Mass. 410; Stephens v. Cady, 14 How. 529; Stevens v. Gladding, 17 How. 447; Massie v. Watts, 6 Cranch, 148; Ashcroft v. Walworth, 1 Holmes, 152; Gordon v. Anthony, 16 Blatchf. 234; Gillette v. Bate, 86 N. Y. - - j Pacific Bank v. Robinson, 57 Cal. - - j Cooper v. Gunn, 4 Dill. 594.