General Electric Co. v. Bullock Electric Mfg. I and infringed.-West Disinfecting Co. v. Frank
Co. (C. C.) 549.
(C. C.) 388.
The Miller patent No. 524,178 for a packing
held void for anticipation.-Daniels v. Restein
(C. C. A.) 74.
§ 8. Patents enumerated.
CANADIAN.
The Golding patent No. 527,242 for a pro-
cess for making expanded sheet metal work
held void for lack of patentable invention.-
Bradford v. Expanded Metal Co. (C. C. A.) 984.
The Berliner patent No. 534,543 for improve- 207,090. Talking machine, cited.
ments in talking machines, claims 5 and 35,
held valid and infringed on motion for prelimi-
nary injunction.-Victor Talking Mach. Co. v.
Talk-o-Phone Co. (C. C.) 534; Same v. Leeds &
Catlin Co., Id.
41,901. Talking machine, cited......537, 539
ENGLISH.
9,146. Sealed jars, cited.
FRENCH.
The Glover patent, No. 559,522, for a sewage
apparatus, held not infringed.-American Sew-
age Disposal Co. v. City of Pawtucket (C. C.
A.) 753.
The French patent, No. 561,386, for a device
for heating the looper of a wax thread shoe
sewing machine, construed, and held not in-
fringed.-United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Green-
man (C. C. A.) 759.
The Reist patent No. 573.107 for securing
field magnet poles is void for lack of patent-
able invention.-General Electric Co. v. Bullock
Electric Mfg. Co. (C. C.) 551.
The Pringle patent No. 573,532 for a sepa-
rable button claims 3 and 4 are void for antici-
pation. United States Fastener Co. v. Dutcher
(C. C.) 136.
The Knight & Potter patents Nos. 587,441
and 587,442 for an apparatus and method for
regulating electrically driven mechanism held
not anticipated valid and infringed.-General
Electric Co. v. Garrett Coal Co. (C. C. A.) 66.
The Shepherd patent, No. 601,405, for a
brush, construed, and held not infringed.
Shepherd v. Deitsch (C. C. A.) 756.
The Felt patent No. 628,176 for a computing
machine, claims 1, 2 & 4, held void for anticipa-
tion or abandonment.-Universal Adding Mach.
Co. v. Comptograph Co. (C. C. A.) 981.
The Wright and Curry patent, No. 631,033,
for a mirror, construed, and held infringed.-
Conroy v. Penn Electrical & Mfg. Co. (C. C.
A.) 749.
The Woods patent No. 645,026 for a lubricator
for the valves and cylinders of locomotive en-
gines construed and held not anticipated, valid
and infringed.-Nathan Mfg. Co. v. Delaware,
L. & W. R. Co. (C. C.) 252.
The Ellis patent No. 714,880 for a composi-
tion for removing paint and varnish and the
process of making the same held not anticipated
valid and infringed.-Chadeloid Chemical Co.
v. Frank S. De Ronde Co. (C. C.) 988.
The Morrison patent, No. 717,014, claim 1.
for a method of making brushes, construed and
held infringed.—Universal Brush Co. V. Sonn
(C. C.) 517.
The Taussig design patent No. 33,633 for a
design for a casing for disinfectant held valid
7.393. Computing machine, cited...
45,048. Talking machine, cited.
53,622. Talking machine, cited..
66,340. Computing machine, cited..
UNITED STATES.
33,633. Casing for disinfectant, held valid
and infringed....
208,385. Steam packing, cited....
251,596. Electric lamp socket, cited..
257,266. Incandescent lamp socket, cited..
258,744. Sewage apparatus, cited.
267,430. Lubricating apparatus, cited.
300,508. Glove fastener, cited..
311,100. Incandescent lamp socket, cited..
348,270. Wooden pulley-covering, cited....
372,786. Talking machine, cited........
381,230. Process of expanding sheet metal,
381,231. Process of expanding sheet metal,
cited ...
381,749. Brush, cited..
383,702. Glove fastener, cited.
388,119. Calculating-machine, cited..
389,817. Portable boat, claim 1, held not
infringed ...
401,780. Type-writing machine, cited..
434,543. Talking machine, claims 5 and 35
held valid on motion for prelimi-
nary injunction....
439,544. Type-writing machine, cited..... 982
439,847. Type-writing machine, cited..... 982
441,232. Type-writing machine, cited..... 982
441,233. Adding and recording machine,
cited
982
457,007. Tooth brush, cited..
757
463,704. Electric motor, cited...
551
463,704. Electric motor, held void for lack
of patentable invention.... 552
465,255. Recording computing-machine, cit-
465,451. Type-writing machine, cited..... 982
...982, 983
471,872. Attachment for type-writing ma-
chines, cited....
Hermetically sealed jar, held limit-
ed and as limited not infringed.. 387
Paint remover, cited..
Electric lamp socket, claims 5 and
7 held valid and infringed; claim
6 held void for lack of invention 539
500,793. Music-writing machine, cited.... 982
501,753. Type-writing machine, cited....
504,963. Calculating-machine, cited...
505,078. Recording device for calculators,
etc., cited...
483,033.
488,416.
489,682.
*Point annotated. See syllabus.
Of duties, see "Customs Duties," § 4.
§ 1. Recovery of payments."
Where the amount to be paid for an assign-
ment of leases on ore land was to be based on
certain explorations and calculations, the fact
that some of the assumptions on which the cal-
culations were based turned out to be erroneous,
did not entitle plaintiff to recover a portion of
the consideration paid as money paid under a
mistake of fact. Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co. v.
East Itasca Min. Co. (C. C. A.) 232.
Infringement of copyright, see "Copyrights," § 2.
PERSONAL INJURIES.
Release of claim for, see "Release," § 1.
To employé, see "Master and Servant," § 1.
To passenger, see "Carriers," § 3.
cited
570,604. Method of making brushes, cited. 519
573,107. Armature, held void for lack of
patentable invention.
551
573,532. Separable button, claims 3 and 4,
held void for anticipation....... 136
578,303. Type-writing and adding machine,
cited
580,863. Calculating-machine, cited.
982
981, 982, 983
587,441. Electric controller, held infrin-
ged ...
.....66,
587,442. Method for controlling electric
power, held not anticipated; and
infringed.... ...66, 67, 68,
595,864. Printing attachment for calcula-
ting-machines, cited.....
See "Admiralty," § 2; "Bankruptcy," § 1.
Applicability of instructions to pleadings, see
"Trial," § 3.
In actions by or against particular classes of
persons.
See "Partnership," § 1.
In particular actions or proceedings.
See "Admiralty," § 2; "Cancellation of Instru-
ments," § 1; "Equity," § 3; "Work and La-
bor."
Indictment or criminal information or com-
plaint, see "Indictment and Information."
§ 1. Signature and verification.
Where a mere glance at a demurrer to the
complaint was sufficient to show that it was
filed in the best of faith, a statement of counsel
that it was not interposed for delay was not re-
quired.-Ballantine v. Yung Wing (C. C.) 621.
§ 2. Motions.
*Plaintiff's remedy, against a demurrer fail-
ing to contain a certificate of counsel, held a
motion to strike from the files.-Ballantine v.
Yung Wing (C. C.) 621.
517 Of insurance, see "Insurance."
ted, valid and infringed........ 988
717,014. Method of making brushes, claim
1. held infringed by No. 791,
510 ..
726,812. Process of treating coffee, held
void for lack of invention...
736,346. Process of treating coffee, held
void for lack of invention....
791,510. Method of making brushes, held
to infringe No. 717,014, claim
1 ..
1. Offenses against postal laws.
Facts held insufficient to establish the offense
..517, 524 of depositing a letter in the mails in furtherance
*Point annotated. See syllabus.
of a scheme to defraud, as charged in an indict-
ment.-Brown v. United States (C. C. A.) 219.
A person cannot be convicted of depositing a
letter in the post office in execution of a scheme.
to defraud in violation of Rev. St. § 5480 [U.
S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3696], unless the proof
substantially sustains the scheme alleged.-
Brown v. United States (C. C. A.) 219.
*In order to make out the offense defined by
Rev. St. § 5480 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3696],
there must be not only a scheme to defraud, but
it must contemplate the use of the post office
for that purpose.-Brooks v. United States (C.
C. A.) 223.
An indictment for mailing a letter in further-
ance of a scheme to defraud, in violation of Rev.
St. § 5480 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3696], held
to sufficiently allege a scheme to defraud within
such section.-Brooks v. United States (C. C.
A.) 223.
Pretensions made by the accused may consti-
tute a scheme to defraud, provided only it be
designed and reasonably adapted to deceive.-
Brooks v. United States (C. C. A.) 223.
*An indictment for mailing a letter in execu-
tion of a scheme to defraud, in violation of Rev.
St. § 5480 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3696], held
not required to allege the particulars of such
scheme with certainty as to time, place, and cir-
cumstances.--Brooks v. United States (C. C. A.)
Advertising matter sent out by defendant
through the mails, held evidence of the existence
of a scheme to defraud.-Brooks v. United
States (C. C. A.) 223.
In a prosecution for the mailing of certain
letters in furtherance of a scheme to defraud,
certain stock advertisements, and a copy of a
false affidavit and laudatory letter, held admis-
sible. Brooks v. United States (C. C. A.) 223.
In particular civil actions or proceedings.
See "Attachment"; "Contempt," § 1; "Eject-
ment."
See "Abatement and Revival"; "Appearance";
Particular proceedings in actions.
"Costs"; "Evidence"; "Judgment"; "Judi-
cial Sales"; "Jury"; "Pleading"; "Removal
of Causes"; "Stipulations"; "Trial."
Verdict, see "Trial," § 4.
Particular remedies in or incident to actions.
See "Discovery"; "Garnishment"; "Injunc-
tion"; "Receivers."
Procedure in criminal prosecutions.
See "Criminal Law"; "Extradition."
Procedure in exercise of special or limited juris-
diction.
Admiralty, see "Admiralty"; "Collision," § 2;
"Maritime Liens," § 2; "Shipping," § 6.
Bankruptcy, see "Bankruptcy," § 1.
In equity, see "Equity."
Procedure on review.
See "Appeal and Error."
Effect of proceedings in bankruptcy, see "Bank-
ruptcy," § 3.
Ground for removal of cause, see "Removal of
Causes," § 3.
Ground for reversal in civil actions, see "Ap-
peal and Error," § 5.
PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION.
On criminal charge, see "Criminal Law," § 2.
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.
In a prosecution for mailing certain letters
in furtherance of a scheme to defraud, other
letters than those counted on, sent out by de-
fendant's company to others, held admissible. See "Injunction," § 4.
Brooks v. United States (C. C. A.) 223.
In a prosecution for the mailing of certain
letters in furtherance of a scheme to defraud,
evidence held sufficient to justify a finding that For insurance, see "Insurance," § 1.
defendant mailed or caused the letters in ques-
tion to be mailed.-Brooks v. United States (C.
C. A.) 223.
Acquisition of rights, see "Waters and Water
Courses," § 3.
In a prosecution for mailing certain letters,
in furtherance of a scheme to defraud, in viola-
tion of Ret. St. § 5480 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901,
p. 3696], the court properly charged that in
order to convict it must be proved that defend-
ant placed or caused the letters to be placed By grand jury, see "Indictment and Informa-
in the post office, as alleged.-Brooks v. Ünited
States (C. C. A.) 223.
In patent office, see "Patents," § 4.
Procedure of particular courts, see "Courts."
PRESUMPTIONS.
In civil actions, see "Evidence," § 2.
In criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law,"
§ 2.
*Point annotated. See syllabus.
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.
Admissions by agent, see "Evidence," § 4.
Agency in particular relations, offices, or vc-
cupations.
Corporate agents, see "Corporations," § 2.
Municipal agents, see "Municipal Corpora-
tions," § 1.
§ 1. Rights and liabilities as to third
Defendants held not entitled to deny the au-
thority of their agent in negotiating a sale of
land, and at the same time retain money paid
defendants by the purchaser on the faith of the
agent's representations.-Schiffer v. Anderson
(C. C. A.) 457.
*One who has dealt with an agent cannot,
upon discovery of an undisclosed principal,
hold both the agent and the principal liable
on the contract, but must elect between the
two, and an election once made he must abide
by it.-Berry v. Chase (C. C. A.) 625.
Transfers and other matters affecting title.
See "Abandonment."
Taking for public use, see "Eminent Domain."
PROSTITUTION.
See "Disorderly House."
See "Customs Duties," §§ 3, 4.
PROVINCE OF COURT AND JURY.
In civil actions, see "Trial," § 3.
Appropriation of water rights, see "Waters
and Water Courses," § 1.
Minerals lands, see "Mines and Minerals," § 1.
*Acts of an accredited agent within the ap-
parent scope of his authority, held the acts of his See "Schools and School Districts," § 1.
principal. Mather v. Barnes, Keighley & Greer
(C. C.) 1000.
PROMISSORY NOTES.
See "Bills and Notes."
Particular species of property.
See "Copyrights"; "Mines and Minerals";
"Shipping"; "Trade-Marks and Trade-
Names."
Taking property for public use, see "Eminent
Domain."
For contempt of court, see "Contempt," § 2.
QUANTUM MERUIT.
See "Work and Labor."
Liability for hire of vessel during quarantine,
see "Shipping," § 1.
As employers, see "Master and Servant."
Attachment of railroad cars, see "Attach-
ment," § 1.
Carriage of goods and passengers, see "Car-
riers."
*In an action against a railroad company un-
der Rev. St. Ohio, 1906, § 3365-6 to recover
for a loss of property by fire alleged to have
been caused by sparks from a locomotive the
defendant is not required to produce a pre-
ponderance of evidence bearing on the question
of negligence to overcome the prima facie case
made under the statute by proof that the fire
was set by sparks from the locomotive, but it
is sufficient if its evidence counterbalances that
of plaintiff by which the prima facie case is
*Point annotated. See syllabus.
Remedies involving or affecting property.
See "Injunction," § 2.
made out. Toledo, St. L. & W. R. R. v. Stara condition precedent to his right to avoid the
Flouring Mills Co. (C. C. A.) 953.
same.-Price v. Connors (C. C. A.) 503.
*In an action against a railroad company to
recover for a loss of property by fire alleged
to have been caused by sparks from a locomotive,
evidence that other fires were set by sparks
from the same locomotive on the same day is
admissible in rebuttal of testimony introduced
by defendant as to the efficiency and good con-
dition of the spark arrestor.-Toledo, St. L. &
W. R. R. v. Star Flouring Mills Co. (C. C. A.)
953.
For carriage of goods, see "Carriers," § 1.
RATIFICATION.
Of act of broker, see "Brokers," § 2.
Of contract, see "Contracts," § 1.
REAL ACTIONS.
Appointment in bankruptcy proceedings, see
"Bankruptcy," § 1.
§ 1. Title to and possession of property.
*An attorney who received a check from a
corporation as a retainer for services to be
rendered, and who presented and received pay-
ment of the check after he had knowledge that
a receiver had been appointed for the property
of the corporation will be required to turn over
the sum so received to the receiver.-Bowker v.
Haight & Freese Co. (C. C.) 257.
REFERENCE.
See "Arbitration and Award."
For accounting in infringement suit, see "Pat-
ents," § 6.
In bankruptcy proceedings, see "Bankruptcy,"
§ 4.
REFORMATION OF INSTRUMENTS.
See "Cancellation of Instruments."
Of evidence in civil actions, see "Evidence," § 3.
Of evidence in criminal prosecutions, see
"Criminal Law," § 2.
Of cause removed from state court, see "Re-
moval of Causes," § 4.
Effect on jurisdiction of equity, see "Equity,"
§ 1.
REMOVAL OF CAUSES.
§ 1. Power to remove and right of re-
moval in general.
*A proceeding by a corporation to condemn
lands under the eminent domain statute of Mon-
tana (Code Civ. Proc. tit. 7, pt. 3) is a civil
suit and removable into a federal court where
the requisite diversity of citizenship and_value
in controversy appear. Helena Power Trans-
mission Co. v. Spratt (C. C.) 310.
§ 2. Citizenship or alienage of parties.
*Where it appears from the record in a pro-
ceeding in a state court to condemn land that
the equitable title to the land is in a defendant
who is a citizen of the state, while the legal
title is in another defendant who is a citizen of
another state, there is no separable controversy
between the plaintiff and the nonresident de-
fendant which entitles the latter to remove the
cause. Helena Power Transmission Co. v.
Spratt (C. C.) 310.
*In a suit to enjoin the destruction of a
water privilege by diverting water from a
as defendants the persons who are undertaking
stream, the complainant may properly join
contracted to do the work, and ask for a com-
such diversion and one with whom they have
mon injunction against all, and in such case
there is no separable controversy which en-
titles the former to remove the cause when
the contractor could not.-McMillan v. Noyes
(C. C.) 926.
![[blocks in formation]](https://books.google.ru/books/content?id=-F4-ZMPAO6sC&hl=ru&output=text&pg=PA1063&img=1&zoom=3&q=editions:STANFORD36105061674714&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U3AaHhp8G5kTRlyEGQC20BCdhNAFA&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=500,1141,426,74)
Of claim of seaman for compensation, see "Sea- and local influence under Act March 3, 1887, c.
§ 1. Requisites and validity.
In an action for personal injuries, plaintiff
held bound to repay or tender the amount re-
ceived by him for the execution of a release as
373, 24 Stat. 553, § 2, cl. 4, as corrected by
Act Aug. 13, 1888, c. 866, § 2, 25 Stat. 434 [U.
S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 509] if it consists of a
controversy partly between citizens of the same
state.-Southern Ry. Co. v. Thomason (U. C.
A.) 972.
*Point annotated. See syllabus.
|
