« PreviousContinue »
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,
ary 24th, 1871,) namely: “ 2. A fare
box, having two compartments, into
one of which the fare is first depos-
viously to its being deposited in the
with openings covered or prctected
by transparent mediums or devices,
so arranged that the passen per can
see through one, and the driver or
conductor through the other, in the
manner substantially as and for the
purpose set forth,” contains no pat.
id. tion. Slawson v. Grand Strect, de.,
from which the invention covered by 106. The claim of letters patent No.
121,920, granted to Elijah C. Mid-
dleton, assignee of James F. Win-
chell, December 12th, 1871, for an
ered by claims 11, 12 and 13 held not Lighting the interior of a fare box
head-light of the car, thrown by the
reflector, I, through an opening, H,
July 4th, 1836, (6 U. 8. Stat. at ber for the temporary detention of
Powder Co, y. Rand and The Same F.
for an improved explosive compound,
the original patent having been
granted to Julius Bandmann, as as-
signee of Alfred Nobel, the inventor,
as No. 78,317, May 26th, 1868, are
valid, confirmed. Atlantic Giant
Powder Co. v, Dittmar Powder Mitg.
108. A powder which, in 100 parts by
ters patent No. 4,240, granted to John parts, cellulose, (paper stock,) 16.82,
27.86 parts, sawdust and charcoal, pointed and had authority to amend or
cannot be renewed collaterally.
as being for a different invention 117. There is sufficient invention in
namely, “ The combination of the
sheet-Ayer with an impression cy-
that Nobel, the inventor, obtained cylinder provided with both grippers
id. 118. The object of said combination,
tion of it considered in view of the 119. There is a combination of the
id. sustained, against the view that it
required only skilled labor to make
prived itself, by any conduct towards the elements of the combination be-
121. The combination being shown in
the drawings, and described in the
specification, as to its principles of
16th, 1869, to Richard M. Hoe, as the the claim is valid, although, in stat-
specification, one element of the com-
115. Marinoni having made oath, in his
PRACTICE, 1, 2.
id. to deny statements in the complaint
as to the manner in which the plaint-
iff was damaged and as to the amount
of the damages sustained. The de-
fendant was allowed to amend the
answer, by denying such statements,
on the ground that the omission to made, and ordering the contents of
5 contract of the endorser was with the
bearer, and no disability of the bearer
in New York, judgment at the trial, under $ 11 of the Judiciary Act of
9 notary protesting the potes did not
have the notes, as well as the cou-
equity has appeared by a solicitor, time of making demand of payment.
4. This statement: “Funds for the pay
ment of this note at maturity have
been placed in my hands, as trustee,"
written across the face of a promis-
sory note, and signed by the defend.
ant, such note having been made by
a party for whom the plaintiff built
a bridge, and the bridge having been
delivered by the plaintiff to such
party on the faith of the signing of
such statement, held, to make the de-
fendant liable for the full amount of
the note, although he had not such
funds when he signed said statement,
and the plaintiff knew it. keystore
Bridge Co. v. Britton,
See Town BOND, 4.
REBATE OF DUTIES.
& Canada R. R. Co., (16 Blatchf. C. See GUARDIAN.
REMOVAL OF CAUSES.
of the notes, and the endorsement 1. W., a citizen of New York, bronght
against S., a citizen of New York, to that Court made an order that the
the bond on removal was that pre-
remove it had been waived and lost;
not having in time filed the record on
cause was then pending in the State
causes, not repealed by the Act of
March 3d, 1875, (18 V, S. Stat, at
342 the plaintiff, and such judgment has
been reversed, on appeal, and a new
which this suit was pending made an the defendant, to remove the cause
new trial is had, the application for
June 2d, on a 5. In determining, under the first clause
of $ 2 of the Act of March 3d, 1875
(18 V. S. Stut. at Large, 470,) whether
à suit is one in which there is a con-
troversy between citizens of different 470,) where all such other defend-
371 and the bond, and the action of the
petitioners by their counsel, in mor.
of such order: Held, that the petition
certain of the petitioners, “ as they
are the qualified executors of the last
will and testament of J. B., deceased,"
were and are citizens of the State of
New York, was held, in this case, to
mean, that they were sued as such
qualified executors, and to be an aver-
ment of their personal citizenship. id.
State against a citizen of another 13. The absence of any acknowledg.
ment or proof of the execution of the
bond was held to be a matter of prac-
tice for the State Court to pass upon,
and not reviewable by this Court,
after the State Court had accepted
14. The bond contained, in its condi.
tion, a clause providing that the de-
fendant should do, or cause to be
done, such other and appropriate acts
as, by said Act of 1875, and other Acts
of Congress, are required to be done,
on the removal of a suit: Held, that
such clause was a sufficient compli
ance with any requirement in § 3 of
the Act of 1875, tliat the bond should
be one for appearing in the Federal