Volume 139 — United States Reports

<p>The grant of public land to the Northern Pacific Railroad Company in the act of July 2, 1864, 13.Stat. c. 217, p. 365, was a grant inprcesenti, in the nature of a float until the route should be determined, and, after that, attaching to specific sections, capable of identification, except as to sections which were specifically reserved.</p> <p>The force of such grant was in no respect impaired, or its construction affected, by the provision in section four of that act that patents for the land should be issued as sections of-twenty-five miles of the road^should be completed; but the company was not at liberty to dispose of its land not patented, without the consent of Congress.</p> <p>When the' termini of a railroad for whose construction a land grant is made are mentioned, the extent of which is dependent upon the distance between those points, the road should be constructed upon the most direct and practicable line.</p> <p>The line of the Northern Pacific Railroad through the State of Minnesota having been definitely determined in accordance witli law, and the road having been constructed; the company’s right to the-lands in place along the line of its route as So located, and to other, lands to make up deficiencies, cannot be doubted, unless a prior right attached to those lands under an earlier grant from Congress.</p> <p>The several acts granting public lands in aid of the construction of the St. Paul and Pacific Railroad being examined and analyzed, it appears that the grants to that company, so far as they form the subject of controversy, were subsequent in date to the act under which the Northern Pacific Railroad Company claims, and come under the well settled rule that, where different grants cover the same premises, the elder takes the title.</p> <p>The operation of the act of March 3, 1857, 11 Stat. c. 99, p. 195, upoú lands previously reserved, was restrained by the act of March 3, 1865, 13 Stat. c. 105, p. 526.</p> <p>The act of March 3, 1871, 16 Stat. c. 144, p. 588, does not purport to be an amendment of the act of March 3, 1857, but only authorizes a change in the lines of the company, in consideration of the relinquishment of certain lands.</p> <p>The exception, in the grant to the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, of all subsequent grants prior to the definite location of its road, was not intended to cover other grants for the construction of roads of a similar character.</p> <p>After the withdrawal from sale or preemption of the granted odd sections, no interest in the granted lands, adverse to the rights of the company, could be acquired except by special legislative declaration, nor, indeed, in the absence of its announcement, after the general route was fixed.</p> <p>In order to secure the grant in the finished sections it was not necessary that the road, throughout its whole length, should be fixed; but the general purpose of the act was accomplished if such reasonable portions of the general route were located as would intelligently guide the officers of the Land Department with reference to the patents to be issued for lands intended for the company.</p> <p>There was in this case no occasion for the exercise of the judgment of the Secretary of the Interior in selecting indemnity lands, as all the lands within the indemnity limits only made up in part for the deficiency.</p>

<p>APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT' COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

Held: or to pay over the net earnings referred to in the contract, in case a new contract was not agreed upon by the parties.” The court-afterwards submitted the case to the jury upon two questions, (concerning which much evidence had been introduced by both parties,) whether the plaintiff’s directors had authority from the stockholders to make on its behalf the agreement of February 27, 1885 ; and whether the delivery of…

Held: That this court had jurisdiction to review the judgment, so far as it involved the question whether the bank was exempted by the act of Congress or by its charter, from liability to account to the plaintiff for the value of the bonds which the jury found were purchased by it from the plaintiff, to be returned to him on demand at the same or a less price; (2) The national banking act is an enabling act for…

Held: That as the proceeding involved a judicial determination of the liability of Greene’s estate for the claim in question, with parties before the court to contest all questions of law and fact, it was a “ suit ” within the meaning of the act of Congress providing for the removal of suits from the state courts.

Held: that the bill was bad on demurrer; that it should have shown that the stock was of some value; and that the general allegations that’ the arrangement was a “fraud,” a “breach of trust,” a “scheme,” and “ colorable,” without stating the ultimate facts upon which they were based, were only allegations of conclusions of- .lavv, which the demurrer to the bill did not admit.

<p>APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF TEE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF ' KENTUCKY.</p> <p>The case .is stated in the opinion.</p>

This was an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court for the Northern District of Florida dismissing a bill of foreclosure filed by the appellant to which the Green Cove. Springs and Melrose Eailroad Company, the Western Eailway Company, the Green Cove Springs and Midland Eailroad Company, and a number of other individual defendants were made parties.

<p>error to the circuit court of the united states for the DISTRICT OF KANSAS.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OE THE UNITED STATES EOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OE NEW YORK.</p> <p>Appeal from a decree dismissing a bill in equity. The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

Held: that Doane had purchased the original note for value, and without knowledge or notice of any fraud or bad faith in the transaction, and could recover. The case is stated in the opinion. Mr, M. P. Brewer for plaintiff in error. Mr, F. B, Hart was with him on the brief. *167 Mr. W. E. Hale for defendant in error. Mr. John M. Miller was with him on the brief.

The case, as stated by. the court, was as follows: This suit was instituted January 27, 1886, in the name of Edward F. Stockmeyer, an interdict, and a subject of the German Empire, residing in New Orleans, by his curator Oarl Stockmeyer, a subject of the same empire, residing in that city, against Charles P. McCan, Henry Godberry, George Godberry, Laura Godberry, Noelie Godberry and Edward E. LeBourgeois, citizens of Louisiana.

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA.</p> <p>ERROR TO THE CORPORATION COURT OF LYNCHBURG, VIRGINIA.</p> <p>Motion to advance, and motion to- dismiss. The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

Held: however, that such loss of profits could not be recovered as damages in an action against the defendants as common carriers. Baron Alderson, in delivering the

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

Held: That the Circuit Court had jurisdiction to correct by its own order that which, according to the judgment of this court, it had no authority to do in the first instance, and that the judgment should be affirmed.

The case is stated in the opinion. Argument was begun on behalf of the plaintiff in error, but the court, on examining the record, declined to hear further argument.

Held: (Chief Justice Shaw delivering the

Held: as a matter of law, to be absolutely void or fraudulent as to other creditors. Oliver v. Eaton, 7 Michigan, 108, 112; Gay v. Bidwell, 7 Michigan, 519, 523; People v. Bristol, 35 Michigan, 28, 32; Wingler v. Sibley, 35 Michigan, 231; Robinson v. Elliott, 22 Wall. 513 , 523.

Held: and the names of the persons appearing in each ballot be read aloud at that place, and the ballot-box not be removed from that place before the votes are counted, so as to mate an indictment good, under § 5515 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, relating to an election at which a Representative or Delegate in Congress is voted for, which alleges, as a neglect or refusal to perform a duty, required of the…

<p>When the pleadings in the trial court of a State, the assignment of error in the Supreme Court of the State, the opinion of the latter court and its original decree present no federal question, and two days later on motion’ of counsel the decree is modified so as to show that a federal question was presented by counsel and decided adversely to their contention, there is color for a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction here.</p> <p>When a charter power is once fully exercised by a corporation, and exhausted, it is, in respect of further contracts and rights of the corporation, as if it had never been granted.</p> <p>The plaintiff in error having exhausted the power to mortgage its property given by the act of 1817, before, its property was mortgaged in 1881, the latter mortgage was made under the then existing laws of Tennessee.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.</p> <p>This action was originally brought in the Supreme Court of the State of New York by Skinner, the defendant in error, for a breach of contract on the part of defendant (plaintiff. in error,) in refusing to account and pay for the use of a certain patented invention, known • as an improvement in oil-hole covers for journals,, described in letters patent No. 12-1,092, and reissue of the same, No. 10,061. The case was referred to a referee, who found substantially the following facts in his report:</p> <p>1st. That the plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement whereby it was agreed on the part of the plaintiff that defendant should have the exclusive right of using plaintiff's oiler on mowing and reaping machines, and should have the right, but not exclusive, to use it on other machines; and on the part of the defendant, that it would use the oiler on its mowing and reaping machines, and would pay the plaintiff the reasonable value of such use. 2d. That defendant proceeded to make and apply to its mowing and reaping machines a device exactly similar to the plaintiff’s oiler, except that in the plaintiff’s oiler the periphery of the conical head of the spring plug was scalloped, while in the device made and applied to such machines by the defendant such periphery was ciroular and not scalloped. 3d. That the defendant’s oiler was a mechanical equivalent for the plaintiff’s oiler. 4th. That prior to any invention by the plaintiff, an oiler was illustrated and described in Webster’s Dictionary, edition of 1869, substantially similar to defendant’s oiler, and was represented as fitted to perform the same functions, and in substantially the same way. 5th. That the said making and application of defendant’s oiler was so done in pursuance of the license obtained from the plaintiff by virtue of such agreement, and was in fact a use of plaintiff’s oiler under such license. 6th. That the value for such use was 5 cents for each of 233,081 machines upon which it was applied. Judgment having been entered upon tlu> finding of the referee, an appeal was taken to the court in general term, by which an opinion was rendered and file'd affirming the judgment. An appeal was then taken to the Court of Appeals, by which the judgment was again affirmed, no opinion having been delivered or filed. Thereupon the defendant sued out a writ of error from this court,assigning as error, first, That the claim of the patent, upon which plaintiff sought to recover royalties, was limited to a conical-headed and scalloped spring plug, and that the patent particularly set forth the scalloping of the conical head, the defect in the device improved upon, and how the same was obviated bj' such scalloping; and that the said courts erred in holding that the claim was not for'a scalloped head, but for the combination, with other elements, of a conical head, whether the same was or was not scalloped. Second. That the referee found that the defendant promised to pay the plaintiff the reasonable value of the patented device, and .also found that if the claim for the patent was for nothing more than a scalloped conical head, in combination with other elements, the same was worthless, and that plaintiff ought not to recover; and that said courts erred in holding that, because the claim was substantially for a conical head, whether said head was or was not scalloped, defendant was liable for more than nominal damages. Third. That the state courts also erred in their conclusion that defendant had actually used plaintiff’s invention, it being found by the referee that defendant had not used such device, unless the claim of the patent was for a conical-headed spring plug, with or without scallops. Fourth. That such holdings were an erroneous construction of the letters patent, and necessarily involved the legal effect of the patent laws of the United States.</p> <p>A motion was thereupon made by the defendant in error to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, coupled with a motion to affirm.</p>

Held: *298 (1) That the association was not required to make assessments except when made necessary in order to meet existing claims; (2) That the insured was entitled to notice of each assessment;.

.ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OE THE DISTRICT OE COLUMBIA. Sylvanus C. Boynton filed his petition in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, November 23,1889, against the Secretary of State, for a mandamus to compel him to pay the petitioner, as assignee of one Weil, certain moneys in respect of a claim allowed under the convention between the United States and Mexico for the adjudication of claims of citizens of either country upon the government of the other, .of July…

This was a bill in equity to recover damages for the infringement of letters patent No. 279,871, issued June 19, 1883, to Charles Hoff of Cincinnati, Ohio, for an improvement in coal-hods.

Held: that this court had uo jurisdiction of the appeal, ■ *332 because all that was involved was the $2100 and $1000, and the aggregate of those sums did not exceed $5000; and there was no decree in personam against the claimant. 'The cases of Elgin v. Marshall, 106 U. S. 578 , and The Jessie Williamson, Jr., 108 U- S. 305 , cited and applied. In admiralty. The case is stated in the opinion.

<p>Error to the circuit court of the united states for the DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

On. March 18, 1858, the State of Louisiana passed an act to levee, drain and reclaim certain lands situate in the parishes of Orleans and Jefferson, comprising the cities of New Orleans, Jefferson and Carrollton, the whole area thereof being 26,026 acres. These lands were separated into three districts, entitled draining districts. To carry this act into effect a board of commissioners was appointed for each district.

<p>Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana.</p> <p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana.</p> <p>Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana.</p>

Held: that the Circuit Court was without jurisdiction. Motion to dismiss or affirm. The case is stated in the opinion. Mr. Alexander T. Loudon for the motion. Mr. T. H. Watts and Mr. H. A. Herbert opposing.

Held: that these facts disclosed laches which forbade the interference of a court of equity. In equity. Decree dismissing the bill. Complainants appealed. The case is stated in the opinion. Mr. W. Hallett Phillips for appellants. Mr. Scmnie Roberson and Mr. W. O. Paris for appellees.

<p>A decree was entered in tlie Circuit Court in favor of two complainants against a defendant for tlie infringement of letters patent, from which the defendant appeaied. After the decree, and before the appeal was taken, one of the complainants below died. It did not appear that the cause of action survived, or that there was a severance "between the surviving and the representatives of the deceased plaintiff. The death of tlie deceased party was not suggested on the record, his representatives did not- appear voluntarily, nor were they cited to appear. Until, that t-lie proper course of proceeding to enablc'this court to obtain jurisdiction had been wholly disregarded, and that it was too late to cure, tlie defect, more than four years liaving elapsed since the final decree was entered.</p>

<p>APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA.</p> <p>In equity. The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

Held: that the failure to record and publish this increase of the capital stock, Avhich Avas in fact, if not in name, an amendment to the original articles, which had fixed the capital stock at $120,000, was a mere irregularity and informality in the proceedings to effect the increase; such a one, as Avas said by this court, in Chubb v. Upton, 95 U. S. 665 , 667, to constitute no defence to a subscriber, to such increased…

<p>APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF MONTANA.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

Plaintiffs in error were arraigned in the District Court of Coryell County, Texas, upon an indictment reading, as follows: “In the name and by the authority of the State of Texas, the grand jurors for the county of Coryell, State aforesaid, duly organized as such at the .January'term, a.d. 1890, of the District Court for said county, upon their oaths in said court present that Jim Deeper and Ed. Powell, on or about the 17th day of December, a.d. one thousand eight hundred…

<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.</p>

Held: that she was a competent witness for the plaintiff at the trial. The case is stated in the opinion. Mr. Joshua D. Ball for plaintiffs in error. The court declined to hear further argument. Mr. John P. Treadwell appeared for defendant in error. Mr. J ustice IIarlan delivered the

<p>APPEAL FROM TIIE CIRCUIT COURT OF TIIE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS.</p> <p>In equity for the infringement of letters patent. Decree dismissing the bill. Complainant appealed.</p>

<p>A person is not denied the equal protection of the laws, nor deprived of liberty without due process of law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, by being tried and sentenced to imprisonment by a judge who, although appointed by the governor without authority, is a judge da facto of a court de jure, by the law of the State as declared by its highest court.</p>

Held: we think, merely to prohibit the passage of title under the provisions of the town site laws to mines of gold, silver, cinnabar or copper, which are known to exist, on the issue of the town-site patent, and to mining claims and mining pos *519 sessions, in respect to which such proceedings have been taken under the law or- the custom of miners, as to render them, valid, creating a property right in the holder, and…

This was a bill in equity for the infringement of letters patent No. 173,284, issued February 8, 1876, to Charles H. Helms for an improvement in sole-edge burnishing machines.

This was a suit iu equity instituted by the Brown. Chemical Company, a corporation organized under the laws of Maryland, against the firm of Meyer Brothers and Co., of St. Louis, in the State of Missouri, to restrain an unfair competition in trade.

<p>No application to this court for a writ of error will he entertained, except when a Justice of this Court, upon consideration of the record, has deemed it proper, under special circumstances, to endorse thereon a request that counsel be permitted to proceed in that way.</p>

Held: that the decree of April 21 was the final decree; but that, even if the judgment of June 16 was the final decree, the allowance was too late to enable this court to take jurisdiction. The case is stated in the opinion. Mr. J, E. Hindon Hyde for appellant. ' Mr. Frederic H. Betts was on the brief. Mr. Howard A. Sperry for appellee submitted on his brief.

Held: that the defendant had no ground of exception to the following instructions : (1) That the shock and pain might render the plaintiff incapable of' telling exactly how the thing took place,'and that his making different statements at different times did not necessarily imply an intention to mislead, and therefore the jury might look at any difference in his statements in that point of view.

<p>APPEAL FROM THU COURT OF CLAIMS.</p> <p>Appeal from the Court of Claims where the judgment was against the claimant. The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

Held: among other things, after elaborate argument of counsel and upon a most thorough and careful examination by the court of all the points involved, that the grant by the Republic of Mexico,- in 1841, to Beaubien and Miranda, as confirmed by the act of Congress of June 21, 1860, the title of which had passed to the Maxwell Land Grant Company (the defendant in this case) by various mesne conveyances, was a valid grant;…

Thomas O. Platt filed his bill (subsequently amended) against J. W. Allen, comptroller of the State of Tennessee, and A. Shelton, sheriff, and S. D. Cate, deputy sheriff, of Hamilton County, Tennessee, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Tennessee, as president of the United States Express Company, a joint stock company of the State of New York, and as one of the members thereof, on- behalf of himself and his associates, who were too…

This was a bill in equity brought by LaRue, plaintiff in the court below, for the infringement of letters patent No. 270,-767, issued to Edgar A. Edwards, January 16, 1883, for a new and useful improvement in telegraph keys. ín the specification the patentee stated that his invention related “ to telegraph keys or instruments used for transmitting telegraphic signals, and is an improvement on the well-known Morse key, being in substituting for the trunnions or pivots upon…

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OE THE UNITED STATES EOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OE ILLINOIS.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OE THE UNITED STATES EOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OE NEW YORK.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OE THE STATE OE LOUISIANA.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

This was an action by importers against :a former collector of the port'of New York to recover back duties of three cents a pound, exacted by the defendant in 1885, and paid by the plaintiffs under protest, on thirty casks of bichromate of soda, weighing 17,227 pounds, and valued at 3325 marks. The provisions of the'act of March 3, 1883, c. 121, § 6, relied on by either party, were as follows : “ Seo. 2499.

Held: That the title to these goods did not pass to the assignee, and remained subject to attachment as the property of the assignor.

Held: {1) That while the determination of the land departmént in a matter cognizable by it in the alienation of lands under the laws of the United States cannot be collaterally impeached; when its enforcement is sought, — where, the matter determined is not properly before the department, or its conclusion has been reached from a misconstruction of the law applicable to the case, and it has thus denied to a party rights…

<p>Error to the court op appeals 0E THE STATE OP TEXAS.</p> <p>Motion to dismiss, affirm or advance. The supposed Federal questions are stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>Purely injunction bills cannot be maintained to restrain the collection of taxes upon the sole ground of their unconstitutionality. Shelton v. Platt, 139 U. S. 591, affirmed and applied.</p> <p>When in a suit in equity this court finds, on examining the proofs, nothing which makes a proper case for equity, it is its duty to recognize the fact, and give it effect though not raised by the pleadings, nor suggested by counsel.</p>

Held: that the defendant in error by accepting the deed, was not estopped from denying the title of the.plaintiffin error, or from asserting the invalidity of the covenant into which it had inadvertently entered.

<p>APPEAL ESOM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

Held: on the facts set forth at length in the opinion, showing laches on the part of plaintiffs, that they were only entitled to judgment for $1500 with interest from November 16,1803, and $12,894,95, with interest from January 8, 1881. *695 The case is stated in the opinion Mr. Assistant Attorney General Maury for plaintiff in error. Mr. S. F. PMllyps and Mr. F. D. MoEenney for defendants in error.