lished for the benefit of the fraudulent claims is not decided. Swann
v. Wright, 590.
1. When a municipal corporation subscribes to the capital stock of a rail-
road company, and issues its bonds, in payment therefor, the bonds
must comply with the requisitions which the law makes necessary in
respect of registration and certificate before they are issued; and in-
nocent holders for value are charged with the duty of knowing these
laws, and of inquiring whether they have been complied with. Hoff
v. Jasper County, 53.
2. The rulings in Anthony v. County of Jasper, 101 U. S. 693, involving the
same issue of bonds, adhered to. The additional facts shown in this
case present no legal aspects to distinguish it from that case. Id.
3. A statute of the state of Kansas directed county commissioners of a
county (when the electors of a township in the county should have de-
termined in the manner provided in the act, to issue bonds in pay-
ment of a subscription to railway stock), to order the county clerk to
make the subscription, and to cause the bonds to be issued in the
name of the township, signed by the chairman of the board, and at-
tested by the clerk under the seal of the county: Held, That the. sig-
nature of the clerk was essential to the valid execution of the bonds,
eyen though he had no discretion to withhold it. Bissell v. Spring
Valley Township, 162.
4. When bonds have been issued by a township in payment of a subscrip-
tion to railway stock under a statute which makes the signature of
a particular officer essential without the signature of that officer, they
are not the bonds of the township; and the municipality is not
estopped from disputing their validity by reason of recitals in the
bond, setting forth the provisions of the statute and a compliance
with them.
5. A statute of Kansas authorized the auditor of a State to receive from
the holder of bonds issued by a township in payment of a subscription
to railway stock his bonds, and to register the same, and directed the
auditor to notify the officers issuing the bonds of the registration of
the same; and further, directed such officers to enter the fact in a
book kept by them for the purpose; and then provided that "the
bonds shall thereafter be considered registered bonds:" Held, That
until the notice to the township officers, and their entry of the regis-
tration in their books, the bonds were not to be regarded as registered
bonds within the intent of the statute, and as entitled to the benefits
of the act; and that no estoppel against disputing the validity of the
bonds by reason of a certificate of registration arose. Lewis v. Con
missioners of Barbour County, 105 U. S. 739, distinguished from this
6. The Louisiana and Missouri Railroad, through Howard County, Mis-
souri, was constructed under authority derived from the original
charter granted in 1859, and the power conferred by that act upon
the county to subscribe to the capital stock of the railroad company
without a vote of the people was not affected by the amendment to
the Constitution in 1865. Callaway County v. Foster, 93 U. S. 567,
affirmed and followed. Howard County v. Paddock, 384.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, B, 1, 2;
ESTOPPEL, 2, 3;
EVIDENCE, 8.
1. The charter of East St. Louis limited the right of taxation for all pur-
poses to one per centum per annum on the assessed value of all taxable
property in the city, and required the city council to levy a tax of
three mills on the dollar on each assessment for general purposes,
and apply it to the interest and sinking fund on its bonded debt:
Held, That the use of the remaining seven-tenths was within the dis-
cretion of the municipal authorities, and was not subject to judicial
order in advance of an ascertained surplus. East St. Louis v. Zebley,
321.
2. The act of the legislature of Ohio of March 21st, 1850, as amended
March 25th, 1851, authorized county commissioners to submit to the
people at special elections the question whether the county would
subscribe to the stock of a railroad company and issue bonds in pay-
ment thereof; and if the subscription should not be authorized by
the county, then that the question of subscriptions by township trus-
tees might be submitted to the people of the respective townships:
Held, That until refusal by the counties to subscribe, either by direct
vote or by failure within a reasonable time to call an election for the
purpose, the townships were without legislative authority to sub-
scribe, or to issue township bonds in payment of subscriptions.
Northern Bank of Toledo v. Porter Township, 608.、
1. A wagon bridge across the Platte River is a work of internal improvement
within the meaning of the statute of Nebraska of February 15th,
1869; and that statute makes it the duty of county commissioners to
levy a tax on the taxable property within a precinct in whose behalf
bonds have been issued under that statute to aid in constructing such
a bridge, sufficient to pay the annual interest on the bonds, and with-
out regard to any limit imposed by, or voted in accordance with
chapter 9 of the Revised Statutes of 1866. United States v. Dodge
County, 156.
2. Ralls County v. Douglas, 105 U. S. 728, relating to bonds in counties in
Missouri issued in payment of subscriptions to railway stock, ap-
proved and followed. Dallas County v. McKenzie, 686.
3. Marcy v. Township of Oswego, 92 U. S. 637, Humboldt Township v. Long,
72 U. S. 642, and Wilson v. Salamanca, 99 U. S. 499, relating to the
validity of such bonds in the hands of a bona fide holder, approved
and followed.
1. Real estate owned by a partnership, purchased with partnership funds,
is, for the purpose of settling the debts of the partnership, and of dis-
tributing its effects, treated in equity as partnership property. Allen
v. Withrow, 119.
2. One partner cannot recover his share of a debt due to the partnership
in an action at law prosecuted in his own name against the debtor.
Vinal v. West Virginia Oil & Oil Land Company, 215.
3. The decree of the Circuit Court was reversed on a question of fact, as
to whether an agreement of a certain character was made between the
copartners in a firm, on its dissolution, as to the interest which the
copartners should have in the future in a portion of its assets. Chou-
teau v. Barlow, 238.
4. A contract of partnership for the buying of grain, both wheat and corn,
and its manufacture into flour and meal, and the sale of such grain as
might accumulate in excess of that required for manufacturing, and
the use, with the knowledge of all the partners in the partnership
business, of cards and letter-heads describing the firm as millers and
dealers in grain, do not necessarily imply as matter of law authority
to deal in the partnership name in futures by means of contracts of
sale or purchase for purposes of speculating upon the course of the
market, and to bind the partnership thereby. Irwin v. Williar, 499.
See CONTRACT, 3.
1. The first four claims of reissued letters patent No. 3,815, granted to
Esek Bussey and Charles A. McLeod, February 1st, 1870, for a
"cooking-stove," the original patent, No. 56,686, having been granted
to said Bussey, as inventor, July 24th, 1866, and reissued to him, as
No. 3,649, September 28th, 1869, namely: "1. A diving-flue cooking-
stove with the exit-flue so constructed as to inclose on the sides and
bottom the culinary boiler or hot-water reservoir B; 2. A diving-flue
cooking-stove with the cxit-flue constructed across the bottom and up
the rear upright side of the culinary boiler or hot-water reservoir B;
3. A diving-flue cooking-stove constructed with an exit passage, F,
below the top of the oven, and an exit-flue, E È', in combination with
an uncased reservoir, E, attached to the rear of the stove, and placed
just above such exit passage, and so arranged that the gases of com-
bustion in passing through such exit-flue, will impinge upon or come
in direct contact with said reservoir, substantially as and for the pur-
poses herein before specified; 4. An exit-passage, F, constructed in
the rear of a diving-flue cooking-stove and below the top of the oven,
in combination with an uncased reservoir, B, attached to the rear of
the stove, the bottom of which reservoir is also below the top of the
oven, and so arranged that the gases of combustion will come in
contact with, and beat such reservoir by a direct draft from the fire-
box to the smoke-pipe," are limited to a structure in which the front
of the reservoir has no air space in front of it, and in which the exit-
flue does not expand into a chamber at the bottom of the reservoir,
and in which the vertical part of the exit-flue does not pass up through
the reservoir. Bussey v. Excelsior Manufacturing Company, 131.
2. Hence, those claims are not infringed by a stove in which, although
there are three flues, and an exit passage below the top of the oven,
and a reservoir, the bottom of which is below the top of the oven, no
part of the rear-end vertical plate is removed so as to allow the gases
of combustion to come into direct contact with the front of the reser-
voir, nor is any such plate employed as the plate w w of the patent,
but there is a dead air-space between the rear plate of the flue and
the front of the reservoir, and the exit-flue is not a narrow one,
carried across the middle of the bottom of the reservoir, as in the
patent, but the products of combustion, on leaving the flue space,
pass into a chamber beneath the reservoir, the area of which is co-
extensive with the entire surface of the bottom of the reservoir, and
the vertical passage out of such chamber is not one outside of the
rear of the reservoir, but is one in and through the body of the reser-
voir, and removable with it. Id.
3. The claim of letters patent No. 142, 933, granted to David H. Nation
and Ezekiel C. Little, as inventors, September 16th, 1873, for an “im-
provement in reservoir cooking-stoves," namely, "1. The combina-
tion, with the back-plate I of the cooking-stove A, of the reservoir C,
arranged on a support about midway between the top and bottom
plates of the stove, and the air-chamber b between the stove back and
reservoir front, open at the top, and communicating with the air in
the room, substantially as and for the purposes set forth; 2. The com-
bination, with the stove A and reservoir C, of the small opening a,
the sheet-flue G under the entire bottom of the reservoir, and the
small exit-passage or pipe E, all substantially as and for the purposes
herein set forth," are void for want of novelty. Id.
4. The claims of letters patent No. 142,934, granted to said Nation and
Little, September 16th, 1873, for an "improvement in reservoir cook-
ing-stoves," namely, "1. The detachable base-pan or flue-shell D,
attached to the body at a point near the centre of the back plate of
the stove, by means of hooks a a cast on the base-pan, and pins b b on
the stove body, substantially for the purposes herein set forth; 2. The
portable reservoir F, with the flue E in the rear side, in combination
with the portable base-pan or flue-shell D, substantially as and for
the purposes herein set forth; 3. The combination, with a three-flue
stove having damper H arranged as described, of the portable base-
pan or flue-shell D and warming-closet G, all substantially as and for
the purpose herein set forth," are void for want of novelty. Id.
5. There was no invention, in claim 1, in using, to attach the base-pan, an
old mode used in attaching other projecting parts of the stove. Id.
6. Claims 2 and 3 are merely for aggregations of parts and not for patent-
able combinations. Id.
7. A patent was issued June 22d, 1865, to one Jennings (and subsequently
assigned to appellants), for an improvement in self-acting cocks and
faucets. The first claim was for a "screw follower H in combina-
tion with the valve of a self-closing faucet, substantially as set forth,
and for the purpose described.". This screw follower was a round
stem "provided with a coarse screw thread or threads." It pro-
jected upward through the faucet, and terminated in a handle for
the purpose of turning it downward to let on the water. At its
lower end it rested upon a valve, which was supported by a spiral
spring, the object of this spring being to keep the valve closed when
the pressure was removed. It appearing that for ten or fifteen years
before the date of J's patent B had manufactured and sold faucets
in which an inclined plane or cam was used as a means of producing
|