Volume 122 — United States Reports

<p>APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOE THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN.</p> <p>In -equity. Decree dismissing the bill. Complainant appealed. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by a corporation of Missouri against a national bank established in Illinois, to recover the amount of certain checks drawn on the bank in favor of the corporation. Plea, non assumpsit.

Held: that this court had no jurisdiction of an appeal by the defendants, except as to those plaintiffs who had recovered more than $6000 each. This was a motion to dismiss an appeal in equity.

Bill in equity to restrain an infringement of letters-patent for a driven well. Decree for a perpetual injunction, from which respondent appealed. The case is stated in the opinion of the. court.

Held: has no effect to invalidate a patent, unless there be proof of abandonment, or of a use of the invention for more than two years prior to the application for the patent.

Assumpsit against plaintiff in error, defendant below, as a common carrier, to recover on a bill of lading-for goods not delivered. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant sued out tbis writ of error. Tbe case is stated in tbe opinion of tbe court.

Held: that, although the C. was in fault, the M. was also in fault for not indicating her course by her whistle, and for not slowing, and for not reversing until too late. The proper mode of applying a limitation of liability, where both vessels are in fault and the damages are divided, and both vessels are allowed such limitation, stated.

Held: that this was not a final decree, which terminated the litigation between the parties on the merits of the case, and that the appeal must be dismissed. Motion to dismiss. The case is stated in the

This was an action to recover back duties alleged to have been illegally exacted by the collector at New York. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff sued out this writ of error. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

Bill in equity to restrain alleged infringements of letters-patent. Decree dismissing the bill, from which complainants appealed. The case is stated in the opinion of'the court.

Held: that the assignee did not represent the prior creditors, because the land was not conveyed in fraud •of creditors, within the meaning of § ’14 of the Bankruptcy Act of March 2, 1867, c. 176, 14 Stat. 522 , now §§ 5046 and 5047 of the .Revised Statutes.

This was an action at law brought in a court of the state of Nebraska, on the 24th of November, 1880, and removed, on the petition of the defendant, into the Circuit Court Of the United States for the District of Nebraska, by Algernon S. Patrick against Erwin Davis, to recover certain sums of money. There were two causes of action set forth in the petition by which the suit was commenced.

This was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Georgia. The decree from which this appeal, was taken dismissed a bill brought by William H. M. Sanger, the appellant, to foreclose a mortgage. The bill was brought against William Nightingale, as executor of Phineas M. Nightingale, his father, Mrs. Ellen D. Nightingale, the widow, and John K. Nightingale, and others, children of Phineas, deceased, the maker of the original mortgage.

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOE THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.</p> <p>This was- an action brought by the United States, in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, against'Clement A. Auffmordt, John F. Degener, William Degener, and Adolph William Von Kessler, composing the firm of C. A. Auffmordt & Co., to recover the sum of $321,519.29 with interest.</p> <p>The. complaint alleged violations by the defendants of statutes of the United States in respect to entries of imported merchandise made by the defendants in 1879, 1880, 1881, and 1882, the value of such merchandise being the -above-named sum, and claims that by reason of the acts of the defendants alleged in the complaint the defendants have forfeited such value to the United States. The defendants put in an answer containing a general denial, and the case was tried in the District Court before a jury.</p> <p>After the case was opened to the jury on the part of the United States, and before any testimony was offered, the defendants moved, upon such opening, that the court direct a verdict for the defendants, on the ground that there was no statute of the United States whereby the value of the merchandise could be recovered by reason of the acts alleged to have been committed by the defendants as consignees of the goods, which was the capacity in which they received and entered the goods, the goods being the property of the manufacturers of them in Switzerland, and being consigned to-the defendants for sale on commission. The facts sought to be proved against the defendants were that they, knowingly and with intent to defraud the revenue, entered the goods at invoice prices lower than their actual market value at the time and place of exportation. The court ruled that there was no existing statute of the United States under which the plaintiff could recover upon any possible proof, and that a verdict must be directed for the defendants. 19 Fed. Rep. 893. The plaintiffs excepted to this ruling.</p>

This was an action at law to recover back duties alleged to have been illegally exacted. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff sued out tbis writ of error. The case is. stated in the opinion of the court.

This was a writ of error to bring before the court for review a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court of Michigan in an action of ejectment in which the plaintiff in error, who was plaintiff below, claimed title under a deed from an assignee in bankruptcy. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

Held: but may be held by A as collateral security for the payment of the aforesaid sums respectively; ” and special provisions were made for the application to the payment of certain small debts, and for the distribution among the partners, of.“any profits arising from the sale, foreclosure, or any other disposition of said bonds.” Upon a contract made by A for a sale of the bonds, which was not carried out, he received…

<p>A promissory note, secured by mortgage of the same date, is not taken out of the statute of limitations, as against the debtor, by a writing signed by him, by which "in consideration of the indebtedness described in the ” mortgage, a claim of his against the government, and its proceeds, are “pledged aud.made applicable to the payment of'said indebtedness, with interest thereon at the rate of eight per cent per annum until paid/’ and he promises that those proceeds shall “be applied to the payment of said indebtedness, with interest as aforesaid, or to so much thereof as ” those proceeds “ are sufficient to pay.’’</p> <p>When exceptions taken by the plaintiff to a ruling in favor of the defendant at one trial have been erroneously sustained and a new trial ordered, and a contrary ruling upon the'same point at the second trial has been erroneously affirmed upon exceptions taken by the defendant, this court, upon a writ of error sued out by him, will not, on reversing the judgment of affirmance, direct judgment to be entered on the first verdict, but will only order that the second verdict be set aside and another trial had.</p>

Held: that the demurrer should have been overruled, and the defendant required to answer.

This was a libel in rem, in admiralty, brought in the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Texas, by Robert Irvine and Charles L. Beissner, owners of the steam lighter Buckthorn and the steam tug Estelle, against the steamship Hesper, in a cause of salvage.

Petitions for a rehearing of the ease decided at this term and reported 120 U. S. 649.

In equity to enforce á mechanics’ lien. Decree for the complainant. The respondent appealed. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

This was a proceeding by mandamus against the Justices of the county court of Knox County to compel them to levy a tax sufficient to pay a judgment for $77,374.46, obtained by the relator, Harshman, on the 28th of March, 1881, against that county, in the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Held: that the attaching creditors, the debtors, and the assignee of the' debtors having, in effect, waived their objections to the manner in which the property was seized,' and the consent order of sale not being impeached for fraud, subsequent judgment creditors could not question the validity of the levy, or the disposition made of the proceeds of the property.

Held: That the decree appealed from being rendered in 1880, an appeal from it taken in 1884 was too late. Bill in equity. Decree dismissing the bill. Complainant appealed. The case is stated in the

This action was brought in the Circuit Court of "Williamson County, Tennessee, by Simon Callahan, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by him while in the discharge of his duties as section foreman on a railroad between Nashville, Tennessee, and Decatur, Alabama, which at the time, was operated by the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company.

<p>Claim 3 of letters-patent No. 215,679, granted to George Bartholomae, as assignee of Leonard Meller and Edmund Hofmann, as inventors, May 20, 1879, for an “ improvement in processes for making beer,” namely, “ 3. The process of preparing and preserving beer for the market, which consists in holding it under controllable pressure of carbonic acid gas from the beginning of the kraeusen stage until such time as it is transferred to kegs and bunged, substantially as described,” is a valid claim to the process it purports to cover.</p> <p>The state of the art of brewing beer, so far as it concerns the invention of the patentees, explained.</p>

<p>On a bill in equity filed under § 4915 of the Revised Statutes, to obtain an adjudication in favor of the grautrag of a patent, the plaintiff must allege and prove that a delay of two years and more in prosecuting the application after the last action therein of which notice was given to him was unavoidable, or the application will be regarded as having been abandoned, within the provision of § 4894.</p>

Ejectment. • Yerdiot for plaintiffs, and judgment on'the verdict. Defendants sued out this writ of error. The. case is stated in the opinion of the court.

In March, 1882, one S. H. Gunter, a merchant who had been for many years engaged in business at Sardis, in Mississippi, was largely indebted to the complainants and others; and, being unable to pay them in full, made a general assignment of his property of every description, except such as whs exempt from execution, to one S. G. Spain, as trustee, for their 'benefit, 'which was recorded the same day.

Held: That this declaration set forth properly the legal effect of the contract, and the omission of the statement of the nominal consideration was immaterial, and need not be proved. The letter of the defendant in error'of March 20, 1876, was admissible in evidence.

Appeal prom the circuit court of the united states for. the' western division of the western DISTRICT OF MISSOURI. In equity to set aside a deed as fraudulent. Decree dismissing the bill. Plaintiff appealed.. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

Held: That the opinion of a witness as to the effect upon,the assured at the time of the issue of the policy, of a habit of drunkenness five years before that date (the witness knowing nothing of. them, during the ;. intervening period), was properly excluded. *502 (2) That under the 1st'issue the-defendant was bound to prove that the assured was habitually intemperate when the policy issued; and under the 2d, that he was…

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP MINNESOTA.</p> <p>The Federal question brought up by the writ of error in this case related to the right of removal of the cause to the Circuit Court of the United States. The case is stated in the opinion of the court</p>

<p>APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OE THE UNITED STATES FOR. THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.</p> <p>In equity. Decree dismissing the bill. Plaintiff appealed.</p>

<p>ERROR. TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED 'STATES POR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OP MISSOURI.</p> <p>This was an action at law. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Held: that, on their own showing the intervenors were joint trespassers •with the sheriff, if any trespass had been committed, and by their own act they had made themselves joint defendants with him, and thatmn the authority of Pirie v. Tvedt, 115 U. S. 41 , and Sloane v. Anderson, 117 U. S. '275, the cause was not removable from the state court.

Runkle v. United States, 122 U.S. 543 (1887), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the president cannot delegate the power vested in him to approve the proceedings and sentence of a court-martial because the president is the only person bestowed with the judicial power of making a final determination.

This writ of error brought up for review a judgment of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Colorado, in an action brought by the plaintiff in error to recover damages for the delivery to him of certain sheets of written and printed paper, purporting to be the valid and genuine, bonds, with interest coupons attached, of the county of Clark, in the state of Arkansas, issued under and in accordance with the provisions of an act of the General Assembly of…

Held: as to the statute of limitations, that ‘the right of the owner of the land to recover the money which the government held for him as his trustee did not become a claim on which suit could, be brought, and such as was cognizable by the Court of Claims, until demand therefor had been made at the Treasury. Upon such demand the claim first accrued,’ and the statute of limitation began to run.