Page images
[ocr errors]



97. The special Act of Congress of 28th, 1871, (the original patent har.

March 19th, 1868, (15 U. S. Stat. at ing been granted to said Slawson,
Large, 356,) under which the patent July 28th, 1857, and re-issued Janu-
was granted, consórued.


ary 24th, 1871,) namely: “ 2. A fare

box, having two compartments, into
98. The words “circuit breakers de.

one of which the fare is first depos-
scribed by him prior to said appli- ited, and temporarily arrested, pre-
cation," in said Act, defined, and held

viously to its being deposited in the
to include such appendages and added other, when the former is provided
instrumentalities, so previously de-

with openings covered or prctected
scribed by Page, as were calculated

by transparent mediums or devices,
to make the circuit breaker more effi.

so arranged that the passen per can
cient or perfect.

see through one, and the driver or

conductor through the other, in the
99. The inventions covered by claims

manner substantially as and for the
11 and 12 examined, as to their his-

purpose set forth,” contains no pat.
tory and the prior description of entable combination and no inven-
them by Page.

id. tion. Slawson v. Grand Strect, de.,
R. R. Co.,

100. Claim 13 examined, as to the time

from which the invention covered by 106. The claim of letters patent No.
it takes date, as having been describ.

121,920, granted to Elijah C. Mid-
ed by Page.


dleton, assignee of James F. Win-

chell, December 12th, 1871, for an
102. The novelty of the inventions cor- improvement in fare boxes, namely:

ered by claims 11, 12 and 13 held not Lighting the interior of a fare box
to have been successfully impeached. at night, by light obtained from the


head-light of the car, thrown by the

reflector, I, through an opening, H,
101. The provision in § 2 of the Act of in the head lamp box, into the cham-

July 4th, 1836, (6 U. 8. Stat. at ber for the temporary detention of
Large, 118,) which disqualified a per- the fare for inspection, substantially
son, while an employee in the Patent in the manner and for the purpose
Office, from acquiring an interest in a set forth,” does not involve any in-
patent, did not operate to dedicate vention.

to the public inventions made by
such employee before he became such (14.) Giant Pourder Co.- Explosive


103. The said special Act construed, on 107. The decision in Atlantie Giant
the question of the abandonment of

Powder Co, y. Rand and The Same F.
the inventions by Page to the pub- Purkır, (16 Blatchf. C. C. R., 250,
lic, and held not to be open to the 281,) that the re-issued letters pat-
objection that it deprived any person ent No. 5,799, granted to the Giant
of his property without due process Powder Company, March 17th, 1874,
of law.


for an improved explosive compound,

the original patent having been
104. The application to be made under

granted to Julius Bandmann, as as-
said special Act was subject to the

signee of Alfred Nobel, the inventor,
same rules as other applications, and

as No. 78,317, May 26th, 1868, are
the same right to a re-issue existed

valid, confirmed. Atlantic Giant
as in the case of other patents. id.

Powder Co. v, Dittmar Powder Mitg.

(13.) Slawson Fare-box.

108. A powder which, in 100 parts by
108. The second claim of re-issued let. weight, contains nitro-glycerine 67.64

ters patent No. 4,240, granted to John parts, cellulose, (paper stock,) 16.82,
B. Slawson, January 24th, 1871, for and saltpetre, (nitrate of soda,) 15.54,
an improvement in fare boxes, and and a powder which, in 100 parts by
extended for seven years from July weight, contains nitro-glycerine



27.86 parts, sawdust and charcoal, pointed and had authority to amend or
in nearly equal proportions, 5.59, alter the specification, and that the
and saltpetre, (nitrate of soda.) 66,55, specification had been sufficiently
are infringements of said re-issue. id. sworn to by the inventor, is final, and

cannot be renewed collaterally.
109. The said re-issue is not invalid,

as being for a different invention 117. There is sufficient invention in
from that set forth in the original what is covered by the 3d claim,


namely, “ The combination of the

sheet-Ayer with an impression cy-
110. It is not invalid on the ground linder without tapes, and a receiving

that Nobel, the inventor, obtained cylinder provided with both grippers
from one Dittmar the knowledge of and tapes, substantially as described
what is claimed in it.
id. and specified,” to support a patent.

111. What is claimed in it was not first
invented by Dittmar.

id. 118. The object of said combination,

112. The question of Dittmar's inven-

tion of it considered in view of the 119. There is a combination of the
fact that, in former litigations, he was sheet-flyer with the impression cy.
silent about his having invented it, linder, because the successive action
although he made an affidavit, in a of each contributes to produce a prac.
former suit on the said re-issue, the tical result.

only purport of which was to show
that the said re-issue was void for 120. The novelty of the combination
want of novelty.

id. sustained, against the view that it

required only skilled labor to make
113. The plaintiff held not to have de- it, in view of what existed before, all

prived itself, by any conduct towards the elements of the combination be-
Dittmar, of the right to ask for a pre- ing old, but the combination being
liminary injunction against the de- new, in fact, and useful.



121. The combination being shown in
(15.) Hoe-Lithographic printing press

the drawings, and described in the

specification, as to its principles of
114. The letters patent granted, March construction and mode of operation,

16th, 1869, to Richard M. Hoe, as the the claim is valid, although, in stat-
assignee of Auguste Hippolyte Mar- ing the invention, in the body of the
inoni, for an improveinent in litho-

specification, one element of the com-
graphic printing presses, are valid. bination was omitted,

Hoe v. Cottrell,


115. Marinoni having made oath, in his

application, that he believed himself
to be the original and first inventor, See PATENT, 18.
and having testified, in this suit, that

he was the sole inventor, such evi-

dence was held not to have been
overcome by the testimony of one
Chaudré, that he was a joint inventor

with Marinoni, and by the fact that
patents had been issued for the in. 1. In an action for damages for pub-
vention, in Europe, to the two joint- Jishing a libel, the answer omitted

id. to deny statements in the complaint

as to the manner in which the plaint-
116. The decision of the Commissioner

iff was damaged and as to the amount
of Patents, that the required draw-

of the damages sustained. The de-
ings and model had been presented,

fendant was allowed to amend the
that an attorney had been duly ap-

answer, by denying such statements,

on the ground that the omission to made, and ordering the contents of
deny them ought to have been re- the notes to be paid to the bearer,
garded by the plaintiff as inadver- and this having been done before the
tent. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. notes were put into circulation, the
v. White,

5 contract of the endorser was with the

bearer, and no disability of the bearer
2. Under the system of pleading adopted to sue, as an assignee, could arise

in New York, judgment at the trial, under $ 11 of the Judiciary Act of
in a suit at law, is to be rendered in September 24th, 1789, (1 U. S. Sla'.
accordance with the facts pleaded and at Large, 79,) now $ 629 of the Re-
proved, without regard to the form vised Statutes.

of the pleadings or the theory on
which they were prepared. Whalen 3. It was of no consequence that the
v. Sheridan,

9 notary protesting the potes did not

have the notes, as well as the cou-
3. Where the defendant in a suit in pons, to present for payment, at the

equity has appeared by a solicitor, time of making demand of payment.
notice of application for a decree,

after an order pro confesso, must be
given to such solicitor. Bennett v.

4. This statement: “Funds for the pay


ment of this note at maturity have

been placed in my hands, as trustee,"
4. The defendants having, with the

written across the face of a promis-
leave of the Court, filed several pleas,

sory note, and signed by the defend.
some to the whole bill and some to

ant, such note having been made by
parts of the bill, and having set forth

a party for whom the plaintiff built
therein the existence of certain rec-

a bridge, and the bridge having been
ords, being judgments in suits at law,

delivered by the plaintiff to such
which were pleaded in bar, the Court,

party on the faith of the signing of
on motion of the plaintiff, and before

such statement, held, to make the de-

fendant liable for the full amount of
he had replied to the pleas or set
them down for argument, made an

the note, although he had not such
order referring it to a master to as.

funds when he signed said statement,
certain and report as to the truth of

and the plaintiff knew it. keystore
the existence of records in any way

Bridge Co. v. Britton,

corresponding with those set forth in

See Town BOND, 4.
the pleas, and to return copies of the
records, unless the defendants should
file, with the pleas, copies of the rec-

ords. Emma Silver Mining Co. v.
Emma Silver Mining Co., 389

See ADMIRALTY, 1 to 3.


PATENT, 2, 6, 18, 19, 70, 73, 78.

REMOVAL OF Causes, 1, 2.



1. The decision in Codman v. Vermont

& Canada R. R. Co., (16 Blatchf. C. See GUARDIAN.
C. R., 165,) adhered to.

Codman v.
Vermont & Canada R. R. Co., 1

2. This suit being against the endorser

of the notes, and the endorsement 1. W., a citizen of New York, bronght
having been filled up when it was a suit in a State Court of New York

against S., a citizen of New York, to that Court made an order that the
recover money alleged to have been suit be removed into this Court: Held,
due by S. to N., a voluntary assignor (1.) That, as the removal was pro-
to W. By an order of the State vided for by SS 2 and 3 of the Act of
Court, G., a citizen of Ohio, who March 30, 1875,(18 U.S. Large,
claimed the money as assignee in 470, 471,) the petition was in time i,
bankruptcy of N., was made defend- filed before or at the term at which
ant in the suit in the place of S., S. the cause “could be first tried, and
having paid the money into Court. before the trial thereof;"
W. then filed an amended complaint (2.) That the publication of the sec-
in the suit, in the State Court, treat- ond edition of the Revised Statutes,
ing G. as the sole defendant, and ask- under the Act of March 20, 1877, (19
ing judgment against him. G. an- U. S. Stat. at Large, 268,) did not
swered the amended complaint. G. re-instate subdivision 1 of 8 639 of
then removed the case into this the Revised Statutes, as applicable
Court. without giving notice to the to this suit;
plaintiff of the application for the re- (3.) That the proper condition of
moval. The petition for removal set

the bond on removal was that pre-
forth that “the controversy is be. scribed by $ 3 of the Act of 1875;
tween W., as assignee of the estate of (4.) That the petition of June 2d was
N., who was at the commencement of filed before or at the term at which
this action, and now is, a citizen of the cause could be first tried;
the State of New York, and G., as (5.) That, as the defendant had once
assignee in bankruptcy of N., who is, removed the cause to this Court and
and was at the commencement of this had failed, by neglect, to perfect the
action, a citizen of the State of Ohio." removal, and the cause had been re-
On a motion by the plaintiff to re- manded for that reason, the right to
mand the cause: Held,

remove it had been waived and lost;
(1.) That the petition alleged the (6.) That the defendant could not
personal citizenship of the parties, now be allowed to furnish an excuse for
and was not defective;

not having in time filed the record on
(2.) That no notice of the applica- the first removal, and that it had ac-
tionf or the removal was necessary, quiesced in the first remand by aver.
and the State Court could, in practice, ring, in the second petition, that the
require it or dispense with it;

cause was then pending in the State
(3.) That it is not necessary, unde, Court. McLean v. St. Paul & Chi-
SS 2 and 3 of the Act of March 3d, cago Railway Co.,

1875, (18 U. S. Stat. at Large, 470,)
in order to the removal of a suit, 3. Subdivision 3 of $ 639 of the Revised
that it should appear that the parties Statutes, in regard to the reinoval of
were citizens of different States when

causes, not repealed by the Act of
the suit was commenced;

March 3d, 1875, (18 V, S. Stat, at
(4.) That the suit, as between W. Large, 471.) Sims v. Sims, 369
and G., must be regarded as having
been commenced when G. was substi- 4. Where a suit has been tried in the
tuted for S., as a defendant. Wehel v. State Court and a judgment had for

342 the plaintiff, and such judgment has

been reversed, on appeal, and a new
2. On March 17th, the State Court in trial ordered, and proceedings, by

which this suit was pending made an the defendant, to remove the cause
order, on the petition of the defend- into this Court, are taken before the
ant, that it be removed into this Court.

new trial is had, the application for
The defendant ought to have filed the removal is made before " the trial or
record in this Court by April 7th. final hearing of the suit,” and in time,
It was not filed till April 10th. This under said subdivision 3.

Court, on May 24th, made an order
remanding the cause.

June 2d, on a 5. In determining, under the first clause
new petition filed that day by the de-

of $ 2 of the Act of March 3d, 1875
fendant, which set forth that the suit

(18 V. S. Stut. at Large, 470,) whether
was then pending in the State Court,

à suit is one in which there is a con-

[merged small][ocr errors]

troversy between citizens of different 470,) where all such other defend-
States, the condition of the contro. ants apply for the removal, and where
versy when the petition for removal there is a controversy between the
is filed is what is to be considered, alien and such citizens, which is the
and not its condition at a subsequent only controversy in the suit. Cooke
time. There must be a controversy v. Seligman,

between citizens of different States
when the petition is filed, and all the 11. Some of the petitioners for removal
parties on one side of such contro- signed the petition by an attorney,
versy must unite in the petition for but the order of the State Court for
removal, and they must all then be the removal stated that the petition
of different State citizenship from was duly made and filed by the peti.
any of the parties on the other side tioners, and that the petitioners ap-
of such controversy. Chicago, Sl. peared by counsel and moved for such
Louis & New Orleans R. R. Co. v. Mc- order. On the contents of the petition

371 and the bond, and the action of the

petitioners by their counsel, in mor.
6. A corporation defendant, which is ing for such order, and the contents
not a real or actual or necessary par-

of such order: Held, that the petition
ty, but is a merely formal party, to must be regarded as the petition of
the controversy in the suit, as such the petitioners.

controversy stands when the petition
for removal is filed, is to be consid- 12. The averment, in the petition, that
ered as not a party.


certain of the petitioners, “ as they

are the qualified executors of the last
7. The controversy is to be judged of,

will and testament of J. B., deceased,"
in part, by the pleadings, if any,

were and are citizens of the State of
which had been put in, in the State

New York, was held, in this case, to
Court, before the filing of the petition

mean, that they were sued as such
for removal.


qualified executors, and to be an aver-

ment of their personal citizenship. id.
8. In a suit by a corporation of one

State against a citizen of another 13. The absence of any acknowledg.
State, it is sufficient,in a petition for

ment or proof of the execution of the
removal by the defendant, under the

bond was held to be a matter of prac-
first clause of said $ 2, to state, that

tice for the State Court to pass upon,
the defendant is a citizen of such

and not reviewable by this Court,
other State, and it is not necessary to

after the State Court had accepted
state that he was such citizen when

the bond.

the suit was commenced.


14. The bond contained, in its condi.
9. Nothing had transpired, in pleading

tion, a clause providing that the de-

fendant should do, or cause to be
or evidence, since the case came into

done, such other and appropriate acts
this Court, to show that said formal

as, by said Act of 1875, and other Acts
defendant ought now to be held to be
an actual real and necessary defend-

of Congress, are required to be done,

on the removal of a suit: Held, that
ant; and a motion to remand the

such clause was a sufficient compli
cause was denied.


ance with any requirement in § 3 of

the Act of 1875, tliat the bond should
10. Where one of the defendants in a

be one for appearing in the Federal
suit is, on the averments in the com-


plaint in the State Court, an unnec-
essary and improper party, and no 15. A suit brought by a corporation
real and actual party, and the plaint. created by an Act of Congress is a
iff is an alien, and the other defend- suit arising under the laws of the
ants are all citizens of various States United States, and, as such, is remov-
of the United States, the case is one able into this Court, under $2 of the
removable into this Court under the Act of March 3d, 1875, (18 U. S. Stat.
first clause of $ 2 of the Act of March at Large, 470.) Union Pacific Rail.
3d, 1875, (18 U. S. Slat, at Large, road Co, v. McComb,


« PreviousContinue »