VII. REISSUES.

139 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Holder of two patents, by application for reissue based on one, held not to abandon claims of other, though his position involved belief of invalidity of the other.-Traitel Marble Co. v. U. T. Hungerford Brass & Copper Co., 22 F. (2d) 259.

IX. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF

LETTERS PATENT.

(B) Limitation of Claims.

165 (5) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Each claim embodies complete invention, and is in effect an independent patent.-Bassick Mfg. Co. v. Ready Auto Supply Co.. 22 F.(2d) 331.

170 (U.S.D.C.N.J.) Incubator patent may be maintained only for very specific construction, and method cannot be broadened beyond machine shown or claims made.-Buckeye Incubator Co. v. Hillpot, 22 F. (2d) 855.

177 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) That certain claims of combination patent covered one feature of invention, while others covered another, did not invalidate patent, as being for two independent inventions (35 USCA § 31).-Bassick Mfg. Co. v. Ready Auto Supply Co., 22 F. (2d) 331. 178 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Patent for an advance in the art is entitled to range of equivalents protecting invention.-Bassick Mfg. Co. V. Ready Auto Supply Co., 22 F. (2d) 331.

X. TITLE, CONVEYANCES, AND CON-
TRACTS.

(B) Assignments and Other Transfers.

198 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Objection to assignment of patent that it contained inventor's middle initial, while patent omitted such ini tial, held not sustained.-Bassick Mfg. Co. v. Ready Auto Supply Co., 22 F. (2d) 331. Assignments of patents by corporation need not be under seal.-Id.

202(1) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) That assignments of patents were subject to certain conditions subsequent in prior agreements held not to qualify assignee's title.-Bassick Mfg. Co. v. Ready Auto Supply Co., 22 F. (2d) 331.

203 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Purchaser of patent is chargeable with laches of his vendor.-Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Jeffrey-De Witt Insulator Co., 22 F. (2d) 277.

229 (U.S.C.C.A.N.J.) Transposition of some steps in patented process, which does not change principle or result, does not avoid infringement.-Craft-Stone v. Zenitherm Co., 22 F. (2d) 401.

236 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Mere change of location of propeller in air-cleaning device does not avoid infringement.-United Mfg. & Distributing Co. v. Evans, 22 F. (2d) 936.

tion held contributory infringement.-Bassick Mfg. Co. v. Ready Auto Supply Co., 22 F.(2d) 331.

260 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Refraining from confiscating whole value of device does not preclude infringement.-Ellett v. Klein, 22 F.(2d) 807.

(C) Suits in Equity.

290(!) (U.S.C.C.A.Mich.) Exclusive licensee may make owner coplaintiff without his consent, in suit to enjoin infringement.-Collins v. Hupp Motor Car Corporation, 22 F. (2d) 27, affirming decree (D. C.) 4 F.(2d) 272.

292 (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Defendant held not excused from answering interrogatories as to process used, alleged to infringe, on ground that it is trade secret.-U. S. Gypsum Co. v. Pacific Portland Cement Co., 22 F. (2d) 180.

295 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Injunction pendente lite should be granted only when patent is unquestionably valid and infringed.-Simson Bros v. Blancard & Co., 22 F. (2d) 498.

Preliminary injunction held improperly granted, in view of evidence of anticipation.-Id.

298 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Question of infringement of patent No. 1,195,923, claim 5, held to present substantial controversy, which should be determined on final hearing, rather than on affidavits, warranting preliminary injunction.-Permutit Co. v. Paige & Jones Chemical Co., 22 F. (2d) 916, modifying order (D. C.) 292 F. 239.

Inconsistent

~~310(7) (U.S.C.C.A.Wis.) pleas are available to defendant in patent infringement suit.-Specialty Brass Co. v. Sette,

22 F.(2d) 964.

311 (U.S.C.C.A.Wis.) Rejecting evidence showing state of prior art held proper, where pleading did not comply with statute relative to pleading invalidity (35 USCA § 69).-Specialty Brass Co. v. Sette, 22 F. (2d) 964.

311 (U.S.D.C.N.J.) Defendant's admission of infringement (imitation) of patent, validity of which is denied, forecloses issue of utility. Tolfree v. Wetzler, 22 F. (2d) 214.

312(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) No testimony as to quality of patented product would add anything to statements in claims and specifications of patent.-Richardson Co. v. Hood Rubber Co., 22 F. (2d) 501, affirming decree (D. C.) 16 F.(2d) 785.

312(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Wis.) Evidence held insufficient to show license agreement, where by defendant was given exclusive right to manufacture and sell patented valves.-Specialty Brass Co. v. Sette, 22 F. (2d) 964.

312(3) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Testimony of one witness was sufficient to show patent infringement, where plaintiff waived answer under oath. -Bassick Mfg. Co. v. Ready Auto Supply Co., 22 F. (2d) 331.

Rule requiring corroborating witnesses does not apply in patent infringement suit, where bill waived oath, unless case was heard on bill and answer only.-Id.

313 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Dismissal of bill for infringement will be granted only in clear cases. Simson Bros. v. Blancard & Co., 22 F. (2d) 498.

243(1) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Sale of parts suitable and intended for use in patented combination held direct infringement.-Bassick Mfg. Co. v. Ready Auto Supply Co., 22 F. (2d) 331.

255 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Durable parts of patented device may be mended or repaired, but not replaced, and perishable elements may be replaced.-Bassick Mfg. Co. v. Ready Auto Supply Co., 22 F. (2d) 331.

259(1) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Sale of parts suitable and intended for use in patented combina

on few sales of infringing device alone, held not a fair measure of profits from sales as element of a machine.-Ellett v. Klein, 22 F. (2d) 807.

For accounting purposes ratio of profit made on small infringing element held fairly to be taken as same as in entire machine.-Id.

318(6) (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Profits tax paid by infringer, could not be considered in reduction of liability, though including profits on infringing article.-Ellett v. Klein, 22 F. (2d) 807.

Interest on invested capital of infringer could not be considered on accounting for profits.-Id.

1,430,066. Air cleaner for carburetor, claims 13,
15 and 20, held valid, not antici-
pated and infringed by No. 1,438.-
553 (C. C. A. IIÏ.) 22 F. (2d) 936.
1,435,199. Relating to heat-insulated nonvac-
uum type receptacles, claims 1, 4-
7, 10-14, 17, 18, 21-24, held in-
valid (C. C. A. Ill.) 22 F. (2d) 93.
1,451,491. Guide strip for terrazzo flooring,
claims 4-7. held not anticipated
(C. C. A. N. Y.) 22 F. (2d) 259.
1,475,980. High-pressure lubricating system,
held valid and infringed (D. C. N.
Y.) 22 F. (2d) 331.

1,513,594. Laundry drier, claims 3 and 4, held
valid and infringed (C. C. A. N.
Y.) 22 F. (2d) 262.

1,528,178. Can openers, held not anticipated (C.
C. A. Ill.) 22 F.(2d) 977.
1,551,853. Valve, held prior invention (C. C. A.
Wis.) 22 F. (2d) 964.

1,553,993. Millinery box, held valid and in-
fringed (D. C. N. Y.) 22 F.(2d)
693.

stricken as general issue.-Gibson v. Gillespie,
22 F.(2d) 807.

XII. ISSUES, PROOF. AND VARIANCE.
382(1) (App.D.C.) General denial challeng-
es only material facts alleged, and does not
make admissible proof of affirmative defense.-
Martin v. Coit, 22 F. (2d) 878.

POISONS.

2 (U.S.D.C.Mich.) Collector may not ar-
bitrarily refuse permit to physician to dis-
pense narcotic drugs (Harrison Narcotic Act,
1 [26 USCA § 211]).-Bruer v. Woodworth,
22 F.(2d) 577.

Qualification of physicians to obtain permit
under Narcotic Act must be determined under
law of state (Harrison Narcotic Act, § 1 [26
USCA § 211]).—Id.

valid and infringed (C. C. A. Wis.)
22 F. (2d) 950.

PAYMENT.

IV. PLEADING, EVIDENCE, TRIAL, AND
REVIEW.

67(3) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Presumption is that
note of third person, taken at time of debt, is
taken in payment.-The President Arthur, 22
F. (2d) 584.

V. RECOVERY OF PAYMENTS.

82(1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Overpayments
voluntarily made, are not recoverable, unless
made through fraud, duress, or mistake.-
Synthetic Patents Co. v. Sutherland, 22 F.
(2d) 494.

mm 85 (1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Voluntary pay-
ment under mistake of fact cannot be recov-
ered on theory of implied promise to repay,
if payee is equitably entitled to money.-Syn-
thetic Patents Co. v. Sutherland, 22 F. (2d)
494.

PLEADING.

I. FORM AND ALLEGATIONS IN GENERAL.

34 (4) (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Doubt as to suffi-
ciency of declaration will be resolved against
declaration on demurrer, where trial will prob-
ably be long.-Ballard Oil-Burning Equipment
Co. v. Mexican Petroleum Corporation, 22 F.
(2d) 434.

IX. BILL OF PARTICULARS AND COPY OF
ACCOUNT.

313 (U.S.C.C.A.N.J.) Bill of particulars
cannot serve as interrogatories to elicit evi-
dence or names of witnesses.-Page Steel &
Wire Co. v. Blair Engineering Co., 22 F.(2d)
403.

316 (U.S.C.C.A.N.J.) Granting or refus-
ing bill of particulars is largely discretionary.
-Page Steel & Wire Co. v. Blair Engineering
Co., 22 F. (2d) 403.

320 (U.S.C.C.A.N.J.) Bill of particulars
not granted where information sought is as like-
ly to be within knowledge of defendant as of
plaintiff.-Page Steel & Wire Co. v. Blair En-
gineering Co., 22 F.(2d) 403.

323 (3) (U.S.C.C.A.N.J.) Affidavit of attor-
ney insufficient as basis for motion for bill of
particulars unless good reason is shown why
not made by party.-Page Steel & Wire Co. v.
Blair Engineering Co., 22 F. (2d) 403.

XI. MOTIONS.

354 (2) (U.S.D.C.Del.) Plea of nul tiel rec-
ord in action on foreign judgment will not be

Osteopathic physician held entitled to register
and receive permit under Narcotic Act (Harri-
son Narcotic Act. § 1 [26 USCA § 211]).-Id.
ing and dispensing drugs in violation of Har-
rison Anti-Narcotic Act held to charge offense
(26 USCA §§ 696, 697).-Nelms v. U. S., 22
F. (2d) 79.

9 (U.S.C.C.A.Wis.) Indictment for unlaw-
fully dealing in opium need not allege defend-
ant was required to register (Harrison Anti-
Narcotic Act [26 USCA §§ 211, 691-707]).—
Brown v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 293.

1065

PRINCIPAL AND SURETY.

IV. REMEDIES OF CREDITORS.

152 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Suit could be main-
tained against surety on bond without joining
principal, where principal was not party to
bond and was nonresident (Rev. St. Tex. 1925,
art. 1987).-Southern Surety Co. v. Austin,
22 F.(2d) 881.

PRISONS.

13 (U.S.D.C.Ga.) Release from state peni-
tentiary under state parole of prisoner serving
concurrent federal and state sentences held not
to authorize his transfer to federal penitentia-
ry (18 USCA §§ 696, 698, 792).-Harrison v.
Snook, 22 F. (2d) 169.

PRIZE FIGHTING.

(U.S.D.C.Ga.) Transportation by mail or
common carrier of fight films was not necessary
to offense of sending them (18 USCA §§ 405,
406).-Atlanta Enterprises v. Crawford, 22 F.,
(2d) 834.

PROCESS.

II. SERVICE.

(B) Substituted Service.

71 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) When authorized by
statute, court has power to subject defendant's
person to its jurisdiction by substituted service
strictly complying with statute.-U. S. v. Wav-
erly Club, 22 F. (2d) 422.

PROSTITUTION.

charging

3 (U.S.C.C.A.Iowa) Indictment
transportation in interstate commerce of wo-
man for prostitution held not defective in fail-
ing to state mode of travel (White Slave Traffic
Act, $2 [18 USCA § 398]).-Blain v. U. S., 22
F. (2d) 393.

Indictment for transporting woman in inter-
state commerce for prostitution and debauchery
need not state her age (White Slave Traffic Act,
§ 2 [18 USCA § 398]).-Id.

Indictment charging transportation of woman
in interstate commerce for debauchery held suf-
ficiently to define debauchery (White Slave
Traffic Act, § 2 [18 USCA § 398]).-Id.

Indictment charging transportation of woman
in interstate commerce for debauchery and en-
ticing and compelling her to become debauched
held not duplicitous (White Slave Traffic Act,
2 [18 USCA § 398]).-Id.

That parties were common-law husband and
wife held matter of defense, and did not invali-
date indictment charging transportation for
prostitution (White Slave Traffic Act, § 2 [18
USCA § 398]).—Id.

PUBLIC LANDS.

II. SURVEY AND DISPOSAL OF LANDS OF
UNITED STATES.

(B) Entries, Sales, and Possessory Rights.
35(1) (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Adverse homestead
entry of mining claim held invalid.-Mesmer v.
Geith, 22 F. (2d) 690.

(H) Grants in Aid of Railroads.

85 (U.S.D.C.Minn.) Reduced fare, to which
government is entitled from Northern Pacific
Railway, held based on percentage of aided lines
in route actually used.-Northern Pac. Ry. Co.
v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 858.

(1) Proceedings in Land Office.
103(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Wyo.) While title to
public lands remains in United States, courts
will not interfere with its administration by
Land Department.-Sullivan v. Mammoth Oil
Co., 22 F. (2d) 663.

United States is necessary party to suit for
patent or lease of public lands.-Id.

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONS.

6 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Railroad Commission
of Texas held legislative, and not constitutional,
creation on which Legislature may confer pow-
ers other than regulation of railroads and rates
(Const. Tex. art. 10, § 2).-Oxford Oil Co. v.
Atlantic Oil Producing Co., 22 F.(2d) 597, af-
firming judgment (D. C.) 16 F. (2d) 639.

RAILROADS.

I. CONTROL AND REGULATION IN
GENERAL.

52 (40) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Claim for de-
murrage paid Director General is one against
United States.-Knickerbocker Fuel Co. V.
Mellon, 22 F. (2d) 500, affirming judgment (D.
C.) 19 F. (2d) 128.

of

52 (44) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Limitation
action against agent of President held not
"statute of limitations," and is not tolled by
mistake (Transportation Act 1920, § 206 [a],
being 49 USCA § 74 [a]).-Knickerbocker
Fuel Co. v. Mellon, 22 F. (2d) 500, affirming
judgment (D. C.) 18 F. (2d) 128.

52 (51) (U.S.D.C.Minn.) Court is without
jurisdiction to enjoin action on certificate of
Interstate Commerce Commission stating
amount due railroad from United States under
guaranty (Transportation Act 1920, § 209 [g],
being 49 USCA § 77 [g]).-Great Northern Ry.
Co. v. U. S., 22 F.(2d) 865.

VII. SALES, LEASES. TRAFFIC CON-
TRACTS, AND CONSOLIDATION.

142 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Interstate Com-
merce Commission, in hearing on application
for consolidation, considers rights of minority
stockholders (Interstate Commerce Act, § 5,
par. 2, as amended by Transportation Act
1920, 407 [49 USCA § 5]).-Cleveland, C.. C.
& St. L. Ry. Co. v. Jackson, 22 F. (2d) 509.

X. OPERATION.

(B) Statutory, Municipal, and Official Reg-
ulations.

229 (3) (U.S.C.C.A.Ind.) Movement of en-
gine and 28 cars from yard onto main track and
into another yard was "train movement," with-
in Safety Appliance Act, § 2 (45 USCA § 9).-
Chicago & E. R. Co. v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 729.

(D) Injuries to Licensees or Trespassers
in General.

275(1) (U.S.C.C.A.W.Va.) Railroad fur-
nishing cars is liable only for ordinary care,
and for defects discoverable by reasonable care
in inspection.-Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v.
Cochran, 22 F.(2d)_22.

282 (9) (U.S.C.C.A.W.Va.) Evidence as to
defective brake on car causing injury to con-
signee's employee held for jury.-Chesapeake &
O. Ry. Co. v. Cochran, 22 F. (2d) 22.

Evidence as to contributory negligence of
consignee's employee, killed in attempt to move
car, held for jury.-Id.

Assumption of risk by consignee's employee,
attempting to operate brake on freight car, held
for jury.-Id.
~282 (14) (U.S.C.C.A.W.Va.) Instruction
held erroneous, as holding railroad to absolute
duty of furnishing proper car to consignee.--
Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Cochran, 22 F.
(2d) 22.

(F) Accidents at Crossings.

312(15) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Fog held insuffi-
cient to warrant finding of duty to repeat cross-
ing signal given as required by statute (Gen.
Code Ohio, § 8853).-Pennsylvania R. Co. v.
Stegaman, 22 F.(2d) 69.