LANDLORD AND TENANT.

LEGISLATIVE POWER. Demise of vessel, see “Shipping," § 1.

See “Constitutional Law," $ 1. Mining leases, see "Mines and Minerals," § 2. § 1. Terms for years.

LETTERS PATENT. Where a corporation is tenant under a lease, For inventions, see “Patents.” service of notice to quit upon its treasurer is a good service upon the corporation both at common law and under Gen. St. Minn. 1894, $ 5199,

LIBEL AND SLANDER. which provides that, in an action against a corporation, service of summons may be made on its $1. Actions. president, secretary, cashier, treasurer, a direct- *A corporation can maintain an action to reor, or managing agent.--Lindeke v. Associates cover for pecuniary loss as the result of a libelRealty Co. (C. C. A.) 630.

ous publication precisely as an individual could *A lease for a long term construed, and held in a like situation and where the publication to give to the lessor the right to declare a for- is libelous per se and calculated to injuriously feiture for breach of a covenant to build on the affect plaintiff's business, special damages need leased premises.- Lindeke v. Associates Realty not be alleged. -Union Refrigerator Transit

Co.

. Co. (C. C. A.) 630.

v. S. S. McClure Co. (C. C.) 623. *A lessor having a right to declare a forfeiture of the lease, and who has served notice of

LICENSES. such forfeiture, does not waive his right by the subsequent acceptance of rent from the lessee For mining, see "Mines and Minerals," $ 2. covering a period which will expire before he is entitled to re-enter under the terms of the

LIENS. lease.-Lindeke v. Associates Realty Co. (C. C. A.) 630.

Effect of proceedings in bankruptcy, see "Bank

ruptcy," § 3. LARCENY.

For salvage, see "Salvage," $ 1. See “Embezzlement."

LIFE ESTATES. In Indian Country, see “Indians.” Liability of vessel owner for theft from pas- Rights of remaindermen held not affected by senger, see "Shipping," $ 4.

an attempted declaration of trust by the life § 1. Prosecution and punishment.

tenants.--Anderson v. Messinger (C. 0. A.

929. On trial for larceny the question was whether defendant stole some cattle or bought them of one R. without notice. There was evidence

LIFE INSURANCE. that defendant paid R. in currency and a draft

See "Insurance." payable to R.'s order, and that the latter sent the draft to the drawee directing him to place its proceeds in a certain bank to his credit. LIMITATION OF ACTIONS, . Helā, that evidence that there was no method known to the banking institutions whereby Criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law," § 1 such draft could be paid without the indorsement of the payee, was irrelevant and im- LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. material.-Sparks v. Territory of Oklahoma (C. C. A.) 371.

Of owner of vessel, see “Shipping,” $$ 4, 6. *Under Rev. St. U. S. § 5356 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3638), providing for the punishment

LIQUIDATION. of larceny, it is not necessary that an indictment allege the value of the stolen goods.- of duties. see "Customs Duties," $ 3. Brown v. United States (C. C. A.) 975. LAW OF THE ROAD.

LITERARY PROPERTY.

See "Copyrights."
See "Highways," § 1.

LOANS,
LEASES.

By bank, see "Banks and Banking," $ 1.
See "Landlord and Tenant."

LOCAL PREJUDICE.
LEGACY TAX.

Ground for removal of cause, see "Removal d See "Internal Revenue."

Causes," $ 3.
*Point annotated. See syllabus.

LOCATION.

§ 1. Master's liability for injuries to

servant.
Of mining claim, see "Mines and Minerals,” The injury of a railroad employé while en-
§ 1.

gaged in loading cars held to have been caused

by the negligence of the foreman who was
LOGS AND LOGGING.

his fellow servant for which the company was

not liable.—Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Brown
Construction in general of contract for sale of (C. C. A.) 24.
lumber, see "Sales," $ 1.

*A mere foreman or gang boss is a fellow

servant of those working with or under him,
LUMBER.

and for his defaults by which a fellow servant

is injured the master is not responsible, unless
Construction in general of contract for sale of, the duty as to which the default is made is an
see "Sales," $ 1.

absolute duty of the master the performance
of which has been delegated to such foreman.

Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Brown (C. C. A.) 24.
LUNATICS.

*The question of defendant's negligence held
See "Insane Persons."

one for the jury in an action for injury to a
servant.-Remington & Sherman Co. v. Blaz-

osseck (C. C. A.) 363.
MACHINERY.

A master held not chargeable with negligence
Warranties on sale of, see “Sales," 8 2.

which rendered it liable for an injury to a tool
boy by falling from a stairway which was not

owned or controlled by defendant, while per-
MANDAMUS.

forming an errand at the direction of the fore-

man.-American Bridge Co. v. Bainum (C. C.
§ 1. Subjects and purposes of relief. A.) 367.

*Writ of mandamus granted by the Circuit
Court of Appeals requiring the modification of

The duty of a master to provide a reasonably
a decree entered on its mandate in bankruptcy safe place in which his servant shall work does
proceedings in the District Court to conform to not extend to safeguarding the route of every
such mandate.-Ex parte Chicago Title & Trust journey, the servant may be required to make
Co. (C. C. A.) 742.

MEMORANDA.

quantity of ore.—Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co. v.

East Itasca Min. Co. (C. C. A.) 232.
Required by statute of frauds, see "Frauds,

Compensation of vendee on rescission of a
Statute of," § 1.

purchase of coal lands for fraud determined.-

Mather v. Barnes, Keighley & Greer (C. C.)
MERGER.

1000.
Of cause of action in judgment, see "Judgment,'

MISTAKE.
$ 1.

Ground for recovery of payment, see “Payment,
MINES AND MINERALS.

§ 1.
Recovery of payment in consideration of as-

MODIFICATION.
signment of ore lease, see “Payment,” § 1.

Of judgment or order on appeal, see "Appeal
$1. Public mineral lands.

and Error," $ 6.
The decision of a circuit court affirmed, hold-
ing that the evidence was insufficient to sustain
the burden of proof resting on adverse claim-

MONEY RECEIVED.
ants to show that any part of mining ground
sought to be patented by defendant was within Recovery of payment in general, see "Pay-
the boundaries of a claim as previously located ment,” ş 1.
by plaintiffs and their grantors.-Porter v.
Tonopah North Star Tunnel & Development for the recovery of money deposited with de-

A complaint held to state a cause of action
Co. (C. C. A.) 385.

fendants' bank for the payment of a portion
In an action to recover certain land as a of the price of certain real estate, the contract
placer mining location, an instruction requir; for the sale of which was never executed
ing plaintiff to prove that the land would because of the vendor's lack of title.-Schiffer
yield a reasonable profit for the labor and v. Anderson (C. C. A.) 457.
capital expended in working it in order to
render the land subject to mineral location
held erroneous.-Cascaden V. Bartolis (C. C.

MORTGAGES.
A.) 739.

The certificate of the location of a mining Of personal property, see “Chattel Mortgages.”
claim held to create a presumption of the dis-

§ 1.

Foreclosure by action.
covery of mineral and of a valid location on an
application for a preliminary injunction in of a nonresident for the purpose of escap-

*That a mortgage was executed in the name
an ejectment suit in which a subsequent locator ing taxation to which it would have been
attacked the title of the prior locator of that subject if executed in the name of the lender
of his successor in interest.-Vogel v. Warsing held no defense to a suit by the mortgagee to
(C. C. A.) 949.

foreclose the same.-Waterbury v. McKinnon
*Where a location notice described a mining (C. C. A.) 737.
claim as lying about a mile from Anvil Moun-
tain in a southeasterly direction, it was not fa- al to the mortgagee's debt, and was afterwards

*Where a mortgage was assigned as collater-
tally defective for failure to point out a par- foreclosed by the assignee, who purchased the
ticular portion of such mountain as the be- property under foreclosure decree, he acquired
ginning point.-Vogel v. Warsing (C. C. A.)

the mortgagor's title, and did not hold as trus-
949.

tee for the assignor.-Anderson v. Messinger
§ 2. Title, conveyances, and contracts

(C. C. A.) 929.
A contract for the exploration of ore lands
preliminary to the assignment of certain leases

MOTIONS.
held only to require an exploration so reason-
ably and fairly conducted in the usual way as Relating to pleadings, see "Pleading," $ 2.
to determine with as much certainty as that
sort of exploration would permit, the extent of

For particular purposes or relief.
the ore deposit.--Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co. v. Direction of verdict in civil actions, see "Trial,"
East Itasca Min. Co. (C. C. A.) 232.

$ 2.
Contract for development of certain ore land Presentation of objections for review, see “Ap-
held only to require plaintiff to report the sub- Striking out evidence, see "Criminal Law,”.& 3;

§ 1. Torts.

OFFICERS.
*Under Milwaukee City Charter, c. 2, § 1,
chapter 9, 88 5, 6, and chapter 15, § 4, the Bribery, see "Bribery."
negligence of a city drawbridge tender causing Embezzlement, see “Embezzlement."
injury to plaintiff, held an act of the city in
its corporate and not in its governmental

Particular classes of officers.
capacity, for which the city was liable.- Naum- See “Court Commissioners"; "Judges"; "Re
burg v. City of Milwaukee (C. C. A.) 641. ceivers."

Corporate officers, see "Corporations," $ 2.
NAMES.

Municipal officers, see "Municipal Corpora-

tions," 8 1.
See "Trade-Marks and Trade-Names.'

OPINION EVIDENCE.
NATIONAL BANKS,

In civil actions, see "Evidence," § 6.

In criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law,”
See "Banks and Banking," $ 2.

$ 2.
NAVIGABLE WATERS.

ORDERS.

Review of appealable orders, see "Appeal and
See "Waters and Water Courses."

Error."

NEGLIGENCE.

PARENT AND CHILD.

See "Guardian and Ward."
Causing death, see "Death,” § 1.
By particular classes of persons.

PAROL EVIDENCE.
See "Carriers," $8 2, 3; "Municipal Corpora-
tions," $ 1; "Railroads," $ 1.

In civil actions, see "Evidence," $ 5.
Employers, see "Master and Servant," $ 1.
Condition or use of particular species of prop-

PARTIES.
erty, works, machinery, or other instru-
mentalities.

Character ground of jurisdiction, see "Courts,"
See “Railroads," § 1.

$ 3.

Death ground for abatement, see "Abatement
Vessel, see “Shipping," § 2.

and Revival," $ 1.
Contributory negligence.

In equity, see "Equity," $ 2.
Of passenger, see “Carriers,” $ 3; “Shipping,” | On appeal or writ of error, see “Appeal and

Error," $ .
§ 4.
Of servant, see "Master and Servant," $ 1.

PARTITION.
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS. § 1. Actions for partition.

*Bare denial of complainant's title on in-
See "Bills and Notes."

formation and belief in partition, held not to
require the court to stay the suit until title

has been established at law.-Carlson v, Sul-
NOTES.

livan (C. C. A.) 476.
Promissory notes, see "Bills and Notes."

*Where ouster is made by one tenant in com-
mon of his co-tenant, the remedy of the ousted

tenant is by ejectment to recover possession of
NOTICE.

the individual moiety, and not by partition.---

Carlson v. Sullivan (C. C. A.) 476.
Of particular facts, acts, or proceedings not

*Pleadings in a suit for partition of a min-
judicial.

ing claim, held to present a cause triable in
See "Copyrights," $ 1.

equity under Alaska Code Civ. Proc. C. 43,
Location of mining claim, see “Mines and $$ 397, 398, 403, and hence it was error for the
Minerals," $ 1.

court to dismiss the cause and remit plain-
Loss of baggage, see “Shipping,” § 4.

tiff to his remedy by ejectment.-Forderer v.
Termination of tenancy, see "Landlord and Schmidt (C. C. A.) 480.
Tenant,” § 1.

PARTNERSHIP.
OBLIGATION OF CONTRACT.

& 1. Rights and liabilities as to third | is not further limited by a subsequent lapse or
persons.

forfeiture of a part of such term by reason of
Where plaintiff alleged that one of the defend the failure to comply with a condition subse-
ants was a member of a firm which they denied quent, such as the payment of additional fees at
only by general denial and proved the contrary, stated intervals.-Victor Talking Mach. Co. v.
the variance was not fatal, but the complaint Talk-o-Phone Co. (C. C.) 534; Same v. Leeds
would be deemed amended to conform to the & Catlin Co., Id.
proof.-Schiffer V. Anderson (C. C. A.) 457.

"Under Rey. St. § 4887 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901,

p. 3382], the prior patenting in a foreign coun-
PASSENGERS.

try of a minor part of a broad or basic inven-

tion does not so affect the whole that the
See "Carriers," § 3; "Shipping," $ 4.

expiration of the foreign patent terminates the

whole of a United States patent covering both
PATENTS.

such minor part and the broad main invention.-

Victor Talking Mach. Co. v. Talk-o-Phone Co.
Construction in general of contract for sale (C. C.) 534; Same v. Leeds & Catlin Co., Id.
of patented product, see "Sales," $ 1.

$ 6. Infringement.
$ 1. Subjects of patents.

A fine imposed for contempt of court in
Design patents are granted for appearance violating an injunction against infringement of
and not with reference to mechanical useful- a patent.-Frank v. Bernard (C. C.) 137.
ness.-West Disinfecting Co. v. Frank (C. C.)

*On a reference to a master for an accounting
388.

for infringement of a patent which has been sus-
2. Patentability.

tained and held infringed by the court, the whole
*Granulated coffee is not patentable as a question of infringement is in general open for
product of manufacture merely because the consideration except as concluded by the decree,
process used may produce granules which are and the complainant is not confined to the particu-
more uniform and attractive in appearance than lar structures passed upon by the court and
those otherwise produced.-Baker v. F. A. Dun-held to infringe.--Walker Patent Pivoted Bin
combe Mfg. Co. (C. C. A.) 744.

Co. v. Miller (C. C.) 249.
*Applying an old process to a new use is not

Where on a reference for an accounting as to
invention.- Baker F. A. Duncombe Mfg. damages for infringement of a patent, the mas-
Co. (C. C. A.) 741.

ter by his rulings limits the scope of the inquiry,
*An inventor, having grasped an idea and court for decision by a motion for instructions

the matter may properly be presented to the
put it in mechanical form, may not wait to to the master.—Walker Patent Pivoted Bin Co.
secure a monopoly on the broad thought until

v. Miller (C. C.) 249.
everything in the nature of mere accessory im-
provement that makes it commercially better

*A substantial equivalent of a patented de-
has been worked out and perfected.—Universal vice or means which performs the same func-
Adding Mach. Co. v. Comptograph Co. (C. C. tion does not avoid infringement because it
A.) 981.

may perform an additional function.-Universal

Brush Co. v. Sonn (C. C.) 517.
§ 3. Persons entitled to patents.
Complainant held under the evidence not en-

*The Metzger patent No. 489,682 for an elec-
titled to the issuance to him as the true in-

tric lamp socket, claims 5 and 7, held valid
ventor of a patent for the subject-matter of and infringed. Claim 6 held void for lack of

Electric Co.
Electric

V.
claims 1 and 2 of the Sendelbach patent, No. invention.- Edison General
651,276, for a wooden center for a hub. | Crouse-Hinds Electric Co. (C. C.) 539.
Gillette v. Sendelbach (C. C. A.) 756.

*A defendant adjudged in contempt for vio-
$ 4. Applications,

lation of a preliminary injunction against in-
and proceedings
thereon.

fringement of a patent.-Robinson v. S. & B.

Lederer Co. (C. C.) 993.
*Where the question which of two applicants
for a patent for the same invention was the $ 7. Decisions on the validity, construc-
true inventor depends on questions of fact,

tion, and infringement of partic-
the court, in an action brought under Rev. St.

ular patents.
§ 4915 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3392], by the The King patents Nos. 389,817 and 507,439 for
unsuccessful applicant to compel an issuance
of the patent to him, must be very clearly sat portable boats construed and held not infringed.

-Winans v. Perring (C. C. A.) 133.
isfied that the decision of the Patent Office
tribunals between the two was erroneous be-

The Parcelle patent No. 463,704 for an electric
fore it will be justified in reversing the same. motor and dynamo held void for lack of patent-
-Gillette v. Sendelbach (C. C. A.) 758.

able invention.-General Electric Co. v. Bullock

Electric Mfg. Co. (C. C.) 552.
8 5. Term.
Under Rev. St. 4887 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901,

The Weissenthanner patent No. 483,033 for a
p. 3382], where the legal term of a prior foreign jar construed and held not infringed.-Phoenix
patent appears on its face at the time of the Cap Co. v. Reiss (C. C.) 387.

(
issuance of a United States patent for the The Reist patent No. 508,637 for an armature
same invention the latter is limited thereby. but 'core held not anticipated, valid, and infringed. -