Volume 112 — United States Reports

Charles Morton was appointed a conditional cadet in the. service of the United States on March 6th, 1865, and was admitted as a conditional cadet'on July 1st, 1865, into the United States Military Academy at "West Point, and received his warrant as a cadet, signed by the Secretary of "War, in January, 1866, stating that he had been appointed by the President a qadet of the United States Military Academy, to rank as such from July 1st, 1865.

This was an appeal, by a prior mortgagee of a tract of land occupied by the Chicago and Pacific Railroad Company, from decrees in a suit in equity to foreclose two mortgages of its whole railroad.

These were suits to cancel two patents' of the United States for land in Colorado, bearing date on the 4th of October, 18Y3, and purporting to be issued, one to a person by the name of Philip Quinlan, and the other to a person by the name of Eli Turner, upon proof of settlement and improvement by them under the pre-emption laws.

Motion to dismiss. The facts on which the motion was founded were these: Each of the' defendants in- error recovered a separate and distinct judgment in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas against the county of Chicot. The aggregate of all the judgments was much more than $5,000, but the amount'due upon each is not stated.

<p>APPEAL EROM THE SUPREME COURT OE THE DISTRICT OE COLUMBIA.</p> <p>The facts which make the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Held: in pursuance of decisions and opinions of the honorable Attorney-General made in that behalf, that the honorable Secretary of the Interior had, and therefore has, no legal authority to .review on appeal a decision of the Commissioner of Patents, wherein the Commissioner has finally adjudged an applicant to be entitled to a patent as prayed for in his application; in other words, that the judgment of the Commissioner…

This was an action to recover a license tax. The city of New Orleans was authorized by a law of the State (Acts Extra Session, 1870, p. 37, § 12), for the purposes of the act, “to levy, impose and collect a license upon all persons pursuing any trade, profession or calling, and to provide for its collection; and said license shall not be construed to be a tax on property.” The same act, § 21, provides that “ all licenses imposed by the city, not paid on the ' 31st day of…

Held: That the case should be remanded, . with answers to the two questions, arid for further proceedings. Information charging a conspiracy to violate a law of the United States. .The proceedings, and the facts which make the case, are fully stated in the

rtsr EREOE TO THE SUPREME COURT OE THE DISTRICT OE COLUMBIA. Horatio Ames, whose administrator de bonis non brought 'this suit, died in January, 1871. On some day not shown by the record, but prior to April, 1873, his widow, Charlotte L. Ames was appointed administratrix, with the will annexed,vof his estate.

Held: that expenditures, by a collector of customs, for office rent, fuel, clerk hire, and stationery were properly to be deemed incidents to the office, and ought, therefore, to be allowed as proper charges against the United States, and as a set-off in the suit. In ’that case, the statute required the collector to keep and transmit accounts of those particular expenditures.

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that held that Native Americans born on Indian reservations were not entitled to birthright citizenship under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. John Elk, a Winnebago Native American, was born on an Indian reservation within the territorial bounds of United States. He later resided off-reservation in Omaha, Nebraska, where he renounced his former tribal allegiance and claimed birthright citizenship by virtue of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

IN .error to the supreme court OF IOWA. Suit, in equity. The facts which make the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>The exercise óf a pre-emption right under the act of September 4, 1841, 5 Stat. 453, by an entry of one-quarter of a quarter section of land, was an abandonment of the right to enter under that act for the remaining three-quarters of that quarter section.</p> <p>A person who, on the 8th March, 1870, had a title by patent to a quarter of a quarter section of land and lived in a house erected upon it, and cultivated the remaining three-quarters of the quarter section' without title, did not reside upon the three-quarters so cultivated, within the meaning of ch. 380, Acts of Arkansas, 1871, which gave persons then residing upon lands belonging to or claimed by the Cairo .and Fulton Railroad, Company, or its branches, the right to purchase them not to exceed 160 acres.</p>

This is a bill in equity, filed in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Iowa by Joseph J. Mersman, a citizen of Missouri, against Caspar A. Werges and wife, citizens' of Iowa, to foreclose a mortgage of .her land in Iowa, ex-ecutedon September 1, 1870, by the husband andwife to E. H. Krueger, likewise a citizen of Iowa, “ to be void upon condition that the said Caspar A. Werges shall pay to the said E. H. Krueger the sum of six thousand dollars as…

. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA. This is a suit to set aside a sale of certain real property in Omaha, Nebraska, to John A. Horbach, the defendant in the court below, the appellant here, by one John A. Parker, Senior, on the ground that it was made to hinder, delay, and defraud the latter’s creditors, of whom the complainant claims to be one.

Held: That neither the note nor the circular was an acknowledgment of the M. bonds as a debt of the city, so as to take them out of the statute of limitations.

This suit ia equity was commenced by the plaintiff in error, who was plaintiff below, in the District Court of Buena Yista County, in the State of Iowa, for the purpose of establishing its equitable title in fee simple to five hundred and fifty-three forty-acre tracts of land, lying within its limits, and seeking a conveyance of the legal title thereto, held by the defendant. , It was claimed that the lands in question were granted by the Swamp-land Act of September 28,…

ORIGINAL. This was a motion for a rule to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue. The motion showed that the petitioners in their public official capacities constituted the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund of the State of Virginia ; that in a cause pending before the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of.

ORIGINAL. This was a motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The grounds for the motion are stated in the opinion of the court.

ORIGINAL. This was a motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of certiorari. The objects of the writ and the grounds for the motion are stated in the opinion of the court.

This action was brought to recover on bonds of the same issue sued Upon in County of Scotland v. Thomas, 94 U. S. 682.

This is an appeahunder § 5 of the act of March 3, 1875, ch. 137, 18 Stat. 470, from an order of the Circuit Court remanding a case which had been removed from a State court.

These were suits against the United States to recoven portions of the Geneva award. The insurance company sued on its own account; the plaintiff Paulson, as receiver of the Columbian Insurance Company. Motions to dismiss for want of jurisdiction were made in both cases, and were- heard together. The facts making the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

Held: That a charge that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover unless the defendant informe 1 them at what price he could sell or had sold his share and they assented to it, virtually withdrew this evidence from the jury, and instructed them that nothing but the assent of A & B after the sale could be effectual; and that it was error.

. This was an information in several counts under section 3312 of the Revised Statutes, for the forfeiture of the tobacco, machinery, tools and materials in a tobacco manufactory, for violations of the internal revenue laws. The property ivas released upon the claimant’s giving a bond to abide the final decree. The claimant demurred to the information as not setting forth any facts warranting the seizure or forfeiture of the property.

This was a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, it being alleged that the amount in controversy was not sufficient to give jurisdiction. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

This cause was argued by counsel on the merits. The jurisdictional question raised by the pleadings is stated in the opinion of the court.

This was a bill filed on November 26,1875, by Thomas Hare and Jonathan H. Pugh, trustees, to foreclose a mortgage executed to them on August 22, 1870, by the Fairmount Gold and Silver Mining Company, to secure the bond of the company for $17,000.

The bill was filed against the appellants to restrain the infringement of -letters patent granted to John S. McMillin, one of the appellees, dated April 16, 1867, for “ a new and useful improvement in applying steam power to the capstans of steamboats and other crafts.” The invention as described generally in the specification consisted “ in connecting the capstan with the freight-hoisting engine or other engine of steamboats by means of shafts and cog wheels, so as to…

Held: that the answer was a fair and true one, within the meaning of ■ the contract, if the insured had never had an affection of that organ which amounted to disease, that is, of a character so well defined and marked as to materially disturb or derange for a time its vital functions ; that the ' question did not require him to state every instance of slight or accidental disorders or ailments, affecting the liver, which…

Held: for that purpose upon due notice should first assent thereto; in which event, it was made the duty of the board to make, the subscription. Ib., 412.

This was a motion to dismiss the writs of error on the ground that no federal question was presented, and that the court was without jurisdiction.

Held: Tiernan v. Commercial Bank, 7 How. (Miss.) 648; Agricultural Bank v. Commercial Bank, 7 Smedes & Marshall, 592; Bowling v. Arthur, 34 Mississippi, 41, under that statute, that it was a part of the duty of the notary, when protesting paper, to give all notices of dishonor required to charge the parties to it, and that a bank receiving commercial paper as an agent for collection, properly discharged its duty, in case…

Held: That B did not hold the legal title of the premises as against A claiming under the marshal’s sale and the decree of the District Court.

This was a motion to dismiss a writ of error for want of jurisdiction; or, if that should be denied, to modify the supersedeas.

Held: That this agreement raised no promise by implication on the part of any of the parties of the third part to repay to the party of the fourth part any-advances which it might make under the agreement to the parties of the second part in excess of the .semi-annual payments which the parties of the third part were bound to make. • •.This was' a .suit in equity to enforce the payment by defend•ant in this-court, who was…

IN EEEOE TO THE CIRCUIT C0UET OF THE UNITED STATES FOE THE. WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI. This was a suit to recover on'bonds issued by the plaintiff in error in payment of a subscription to the stock of a railroad company. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Held: The evidence was not admissible, and the valuation and limitation of liability in the bill of lading was just and reasonable, and binding on the plaintiff; (2) The terms of the limitation covered a loss through negligence.

Held: That, under the laws of Illinois in force when the rights of the parties became fixed, a judgment creditor of F had no lien at law upon his interest in the property, and could acquire one only by filing a bill in equity.

This was a suit in equity for alleged infringement of a patent praying for an accounting, for damages, and a perpetual injunction. Decree below for defendants, dismissing the bill, and appeal to this court ;hy plaintiff. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

This suit involved the title to that part of square 223, in the City of Washington, designated as lot 7, at the southwest corner of New York Avenue and Fourteenth Street. Its building line on the avenue was about 152 feet and 9 inches in length, and on Fourteenth Street a little less; while the south line, which was at right angles with Fourteenth Street, was about 100 .feet, and the west line, which'was at right angles with the avenue, was about 97 feet 5 inches, in length.

Held: That the latter deed did not convey the legal title to the land, and was not made in execution of the power reserved to S. The question in this case related to the proper distribution of the proceeds of the sale of a parcel of land in lot 9, in square 455, in the city of Washington, under a décree of the (Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.

This was a bill in equity to. quiet title and restrain waste, filed by the appellee, The First National Bank of Crawfordsville, Indiana, against the appellant, Harris Reynolds.

This was a suit in equity brought up oh appeal from an adverse decree of the Circuit Court in Kansas (see 2 McCrary, 550). The objects of the suit and' the facts which make the case are' set forth in the opinion of the court.

Held: That under all the circumstances of this case, this was to be regarded as a payment of the mortgage notes, and that B as against H was not entitled to be subrogated in the place of D, with the right to enforce the mortgage against tract 2. This was an appeal from a decree in equity of the Circuit . Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ulinois. The facts which make the case are stated in the

<p>An act of the legislature of New Jersey construed, — to the effect that it authorized certain township officers to execute bonds for the township to raise money for bounties to volunteers.</p>

Held: That the defendant Was bop.nd. by the construction -put upon the bill below, and that the objection to jurisdiction was too late. . *440 In Louisiana the certificate of a judge under article 127 of the Code, that he has examined a married woman apart from her husband touching a pro- . posed borrowing of money by her, and that he is satisfied that the proposed debt is not to be contracted for her husband’s debt or…

Held: unless in obedience to express statute, to a narrower range of securities than is allowed by the law of the State of the ward’s domicil. By the law of Georgia before 1863, and by the law of Alabama, a guardian might invest his ward’s money in bank stock in Georgia or in New York, or in city bonds, or in bonds issued by a railroad corporation and indorsed by the State which had chartered it.

•The Revised Statutes of the United States relating to the District of Columbia provide as follows: “ § 715.

.APPEAL FROM THE' CIRCUIT'COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO. This was a bill in equity for an injunction and damages for the infringement of a patent for an improvement in machines for threshing and hulling clover seed.. The answer set up a former decree as an estoppel.

<p>IN ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND.</p> <p>This was a suit on an administrator’s bond taken in the name of the State of Maryland for the benefit of the parties interested. It was commenced in a State court of' Maryland, against citizens of Maryland, and was removed to the Circuit Court of the United States on the ground that the real party in interest was a citizen of New Jersey. The facts raising the questions of jurisdiction, and the questions on the merits, are all fully stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Julia. Morgan, imported into the port of New York, from Europe, in May, 1876, a carriage, on which, at the appraised value of .$667, the collector exacted a duty of" 85 per cent., amounting to $233.45, under the following provision of Schedule M of § 2504 -of the Revised Statutes (p. 474, -2d ed.): “ Carriages and parts of carriages: thirty-five per centum ad valorem.” She protested in writing to the collector against paying the 35 per cent, duty, on the ground that the…

This was a writ of error brought under the act of March 3, 1875, ch. 137, § 5, 18 Stat. 472, to reverse an order of the Circuit Court remanding a suit at law to the State court from which it had been removed.. The suit was begun by Jacob W. Gebhardt, the, defendant in error, against Isaac W. England, the plaintiff in error, in the Supreme Court of New Jersey, and a summons was duly served on England. Thp pleadings were made up and issue joined in the State court.

Held: To be frivolous. This was a motion to dismiss, with which a motion to affirm was combined under the rule. The grounds for both branches of the motion are fully stated in the

These suits were brought in the Court of Claims. James H. North was an officer in the navy of the United States from May 29, 1829, to January 11, 1861, when he resigned. He served in the war with Mexico, as lieutenant, on board tho frigate Potomac, from February 10, 1816, until Juiy, 1817, when his vessel sailed for the United States.

Held: That the bark was in fault and the schooner free from fault.

Held: That the estate of E in the land specifically devised to her was devested by her dying under age and without issue, though after the deaths of the testator and of W. A statute of a State, enacting that two concurring verdicts and judgments in . ejectment shall be conclusive of the title, establishes a rule of property in , land within the State, and binds the courts of the. United States.

Chew Heong, a Chinese laborer, arrived in the United States November 17,1880, remained in the country until June, 1881, departed then for Honolulu, where he remained until September, 1884, when he returned to the United States. During the period of his absence the Chinese restriction acts of May 6, 1882, 22 Stat. 58, and July 5, 1884, 23 Stat. 115, were enacted.

The Head Money Cases, 112 U.S. 580 (1884), also referred to as Edye v. Robertson, were a group of cases decided together by the United States Supreme Court.

<p>APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS.</p> <p>The facts which make the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

IN ERROíí'TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OE THE UNITED STATES EOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OE ILLINOIS. This was a writ of error to’reverse a judgment of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ulinois for the defendant in error in an action of assumpsit brought by him against the plaintiffs in error, and tried by that court without a jury.

Held: and required such new matter to be disclaimed, as a condition precedent to the extension. A disclaimer was filed disclaiming the movable bunter as of the invention of Allen. No. 1,948 was then extended by a certificate which stated that a disclaimer had been filed to that part of the invention embraced in such new matter.

This was an appeal from a judgment in favor of the Great Falls Manufacturing Company, a corporation of the State of Virginia, for the sum of $15,692 as compensation for all past and future use and occupation by the United States of certain land, water rights and privileges claimed by that company, and all consequential damages which it may legally assert by reason of the execution of a certain one of the plans adopted by the government for supplying the cities of Washington…

<p>IN ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOE THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN.</p> <p>This was an action at law brought June 25, 1879, by Alexander Rodgers, the defendant in error, against The Torrent and Arms Lumber Company, the plaintiff in error, to recover damages for the infringement of reissued letters patent for “ a new and improved machine for rolling saw-logs,” dated July 15, 1873, granted to Rodgers as the assignee of Esau Tarrant, the original patentee. The lumber company pleaded the general issue, with notice that, among other things, it would give in evidénce, and insist in its defence,.“that the said patentee and his assignee, the plaintiff, unjustly obtained the reissued .patent for matters and principles embraced in such reissue not included in the original patent or specification therefor, and for what was in fact invented, by another, to wit, John Torrent, of the city of Muskegon, who was using reasonable diligence in adapting and perfecting the same; ” that John Torrent “ made his application for a patent therefor on January 29, 1873, and his patent was granted August 12, 1873, and the plaintiff and his assignee had knowledge prior to the application for such reissue of the aforesaid application for patent by the said John Torrent, and'the said principles so patented by the said John Torrent had (by him) been used at the city of Muskegon, aforesaid, by said John Torrent and others.”</p> <p>Upon the trial in the Circuit Court, Rodgers, to maintain the issue on his part, introduced in evidence the original letters patent, dated August 25, 1868, granted to Esau Tarrant for “ a</p> <p> </p> <p>new and improved machine for rolling saw-logs,” the assignment of said letters patent by the patentee to Rodgers, and the reissued letters patent granted to Rodgers as the assignee of Torrent, applied for June 25,1873, and issued and dated July 15, 1873.</p> <p>The specification and claims of the original and reissued patents were both illustrated by the annexed drawings.</p> <p>The original specification, is here reproduced, so as to show the changes made in the reissue. The parts in italics are found in the reissue and not in the original, and the parts enclosed in brackets are found in the original' and not in the reissue:</p> <p>“ Be it known that I, Esau Tarrant, of Muskegon, in the county of Muskegon and State of Michigan, have invented a</p> <p> </p> <p>new and improved machine for turning [rolling saw] logs; and I do hereby declare that the following is a full, clear ánd exact description thereof, which will enable others skilled in the art to which it appertains to make and use the same; reference being had to the accompanying drawings forming [a] part pf this specification:</p> <p>“ Figure 1 is a side view of my improved machine, parts of the frame being broken away to show the construction.</p> <p>“ Figure 2 is a detail sectional view of the same taken through the line x, x, of Figure 1.</p> <p>“ Similar letters of reference indicate corresponding parts in the different figures of the draw' g.</p> <p>“ My invention has for its o ct to furnish an improved device for turning or rolling logs to or upon the carriage of circular or other saw-mills, which shall be simple in construction, effective in operation, and conveniently operated; and it consists in the application for that purpose of a toothed-bar 'connected with mea/ns for giving it the necessary movement; and further, in the construction and combination of the various parts, as hereinafter more' fully described.</p> <p>“ A represents [a part of] the frame work, and B [represents] the log carriage of a [an ordinary] saw-mill [about the construction of which parts there is nothing new].</p> <p>“ C is a [an upright] bar having teeth cx attached to its forward side, and which [moves up and down between the posts D, attached to the frame A], has a vertical as well as horizontal mo'oement, controlled by suitable guides.</p> <p>“ The lower end of the toothed arm C is pivoted to and between two blocks E, which moves up and down in grooves in the inner sides of the posts D, as shown in Figure 2, and in dotted lines in Figure 1.</p> <p>“ This construction enables the upper end of the [upright] bar C to move back and forth to adjust itself to the size of the log to be rolled or turned upon the -carriage B, and also to enable the teeth c1 to pass the log when the bar is descending.</p> <p>“ To the rear side of the lower end of the bar C is attached, or upon it is formed, a block, arm, or projection c% to which is attached the end of the rope or chain F, by means of which the said [upright] bar C is raised to turn the log.</p> <p>“ This manner of' attaching the hoisting chain forces the upper end of the said bar C forward, causing the teeth c1 to take & firm, [firmer] hold upon the log to be rolled.</p> <p>“ The chain or rope F passes over a pulley Gr, secured in a proper position [immediately] beneath a log deck II, and thence' down to the barrel or drum I upon [of] the shaft J, to which one [its] end of it is securely attached.</p> <p>“ Upon [To] the shaft J is also attached the large friction pulley K, to which motion is given by the small friction pulley L, secured upon [attached to] the shaft M, to which shaft is also attached the pulley N, by means of which motion is communicated to the apparatus from the driving power of the mill.</p> <p>“ One end of the shaft M works in stationary hearings attached to or connected with the frame of the mill, and its other end works in bearings secured upon [attached to] the bridge-tree O, one end of which is pivoted to the frame A, and the other [end of wdiich] rests upon the cam P, of the cam-shaft Q, so that by means of said cam-shaft the bridge-tree O may be raised or lowered to bring the friction-pulley L into or remove it from contact with the friction-pulley K.</p> <p>“ E is a brake-bar which may be made of wood or other suitable material. One end of this [the] brake-bar [E] is pivoted to the frame A or [to] some other suitable support, and its other end is connected with one [the] end of the bridge-tree O by the bar S, so that as the friction-pulley L is moved away from the [friction] pulley K the brake may he applied to the friction-pulley K, either to hold the bar C stationary or to allow it to descend with any desired rapidity. •</p> <p>“ To one end of the cam-shaft Q is attached a lever or arm T, having a weight IJ suspended from its end, which may be regulated so as to hold the friction-pulley L against the [friction] pulley K with any desired force.</p> <p>“ The lever or arm T may be operated to throw the friction-pulley L into or out of gear with the friction-pulley K, by means of levers or cords, as may be desired or found most convenient.</p> <p>“Having thus described my invention, [what] I claim as new and desire to secure by letters patent [is]—</p> <p>“ 1. The toothed-bar herein described operating substantially in the manner and for the purpose specified.</p> <p>“ [1] The toothed-bar C, pivoted at its lower end between the blocks E, which are adapted to slide in vertical grooves forrped in the posts D, whereby the said bar C is rendered- vertically movable and capable of "adjustment to suit logs of different sizes, substantially as herein set forth [and shown],</p> <p>“ 8. The combination [arrangement] of the pivoted brake It, connection S, and pivoted bridge-tree O, [in which is formed the outer bearing for shaft m\, substantially as herein shown and described, [whereby pulley L is removed from contact with pulley K, and the brake brought into contact with the latter and vice versa simultaneously, as herein set forth.]</p> <p>“ [2] J. The combination with [and arrangement with relation to] the bar C, of the cord or chain F, pulley Gl, shaft J, drum I, friction-pulleys K L, and adjustable shaft M, [all] substantially as set forth [and shown],</p> <p>“ [4] 5. The combination [arrangement] of the cam P and sháft [P] Q and weighted arm T, with [relation to] the connected brake and bridge-tree, to operate as and for the purpose described.”</p> <p>It appeared by the bill of exceptions that the only claim of the reissued patent upon which the plaintiff relied, or Avhich Avas considered under the instructions of the court to the jury, was the first claim. The plaintiff relied simply upon the infringement of the toothed-bar and its mode of operation. He did not allege infringement of any combination claim, or of the device, or any of its parts, by which the movement of the toothed-bar was producéd.</p> <p>The plaintiff also introduced evidence tending to shoAV, as he claimed, infringement by the defendant of the first claim of the reissued patent, and evidence tending to shoAV the damages sustained by him by reason of such infringement.</p> <p>The defendant,- to sustain his defences, introduced in evidence letters patent “ for certain improvements in log-turners ” issued to John Torrent, dated August 12, 1873, upon his application therefor filed January 29,1873. In this patent a Avedge-shaped toothed-bar is shown hinged at its lower end to an upright shaft, in order that it might adjust itself in proper position to take hold of a log and roll it to and on the carriage of a saAv-mill. The apparatus was shoAvn in combination with inclined Avays upon the log-deck, provided with a stop to hold back the logs which lay side by side in a series on the log-deck, and it was intended that the log-turning device should separate the last log in the series from the others, and roll it over from the deck upon the carriage. The first claim of the patent was “ the toothed-bar, the bottom of which is' pivoted to an upright reciprocating shaft, as described.” The specification of the patent was illustrated by the annexed drawing.</p> <p> </p> <p>The defendant then introduced evidence tending to show that the machine, the use of which by him was charged by the plaintiff to be an infringement on his reissued letters patent, was constructed according to the patent of John Torrent just described.</p> <p>The evidence having been closed, the defendant asked' the court to charge the jury—</p> <p>“ That in view of the pleadings and proof, and the claims and disclaimers of the plaintiff regarding the portion of his patent claimed to be infringed, the jury are instructed to render a verdict for the defendant.”</p> <p>The court refused to give this charge. After receiving the charge of the court upon the case, as presented by the pleadings and evidence, the jipy returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $960, on which the court rendered, judgment. This writ of error brought up that judgment' for review.</p>

This suit was brought by the defendant in error, as plaintiff below, to recover of the plaintiff in error, a municipal corporation, the amount of certain coupons on bonds issued in payment of a subscription to stock in a railroad corporation. The casewas tried before the judge without the intervention of a jury. There was a general finding of facts and a judgment for the 'plaintiff below, and a general bill of exceptions by the defendant, which incorporated all the evidence.

Held: That the complaint was sufficient. The consignee and another person united in a bond to the company, conditioned that the former should pay to it all moneys which should become due under, or arise from, the written agreement, and waiving notice of non-payment: Held, That the liability of the surety arose on the bond, and that of the consignee on the bond or the written agreement, and that the statute of limitations…

Held: That it was not necessary to allege or show any notice to the surety of a default by the principal in paying Y. The facts are stated in the

<p>IN error to the supreme court of THE STATE OF WISCONSIN.</p> <p>The facts which make the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>Motions to vacate a supersedeas, and other motions of that kind, made before the record is printed, must be accompanied by a statement of the facts on which they rest, agreed to by the parties, or supported by printed copies of so much of the record as will enable the court to act understandingly, without reference to the transcript on file.</p>

<p>IN ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.</p>

<p>In Iowa, a general denial by a defendant, in an action op. a contract, of each and every allegation in a petition which sets forth the contract and avers that the plaintiff had duly performed all the conditions on his part to be performed, admits the performance of a condition precedent in the contract that the plaintiff should deposit a sum of money for his faithful performance thereof.</p>

<p>IN ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OE THE STATE OE MINNESOTA.</p> <p>The facts which make the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

This case came up on appeal from the Court of Claims. The facts which make the case are- stated in the opinion of the court.

This was an appeal from a decree in a suit in equity in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. The facts which make the case are stated in the opinion of the court.