LARCENY.
See "Embezzlement."

MARINE INSURANCE

See "Insurance," $ 4.

LEASES.

MARRIAGE.
See "Landlord and Tenant."

See "Husband and Wife.”
LEGACIES.

MARRIED WOMEN.
See “Wills."

See "Husband and Wife."
LEGACY TAX.
See "Taxation," 8 1.

MARSHALING ASSETS AND SECURI-

TIES.
LEGISLATIVE POWER.
See “Constitutional Law,” 1.

A decree requiring a creditor on payment
from a fund in court to transfer notes held by

him and secured by a lien on other property
LETTERS PATENT.

to a receiver and directing a sale of the same

by the receiver held within the power of the
For inventions, see “Patents.”

court, and the carrying of the same into effect

not to operate as a payment of the_notes or a
LICENSES.

discharge of the lien.-Mansur v. Dupree (C.

C. A.) 329.
For making use, or sale of patented articles, see
"Patents," $ 3.

MASTER AND SERVANT.
LIENS.

Construction of contract of employment in gen-

eral, see "Contracts," $ 2.
Effect of proceedings in bankruptcy, see "Bank- Impeachment of witness in action for services,
ruptcy," $ 4.

see "Witnesses," $ 3.
Equitable lien to confused property, see "Con- Priority of claims for wages in administration
fusion of Goods."

of estate of bankrupt, see "Bankruptcy," $ 7.
Landlord's lien for rent, see “Landlord and Trade unions, see "Trade Unions."

Tenant," $ 2.
Marshaling notes secured by lien, see "Marshal-8 1. Master's liability for injuries to
ing Assets and Securities.”

servant.
*Under Rev. St. Utah 1898, 88 1342, 1343,

a furnaceman who, in response to a complaint of
LIMITATION OF ACTIONS.

danger, promises a grater, whom he had author-

ity to direct, that he would notify a carman
See “Adverse Possession."

employed by the same master under a different

foreman to stop his car before it came to the
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. furnace, held a vice principal as to such grater.-

Utah Consol. Min. Co. v. Paxton (C. C. A.)
Of owner of vessel, see “Shipping,” & 4.

114.

* Where a servant complains of a dangerous de-
LITERARY PROPERTY.

fect in his place of work, and the master prom-

ises to remedy it, the risk is on the master,
See "Copyrights.”

and the servant is relieved from it for a reason-

able time to enable the employer to remove it,
LOCATION.

unless the danger is imminent.-Utah Consol.

Min. Co. v. Paxton (C. C. A.) 114.
Of mining claim, see "Mines and Minerals," $ 1.

MEASURE OF DAMAGES.
LOGS AND LOGGING.
Conspiracy to obtain public timber land, see See "Damages,” s 1.

"Conspiracy," $ 2.
Trees as part of realty, see “Property."

MERGER.
LOOKOUT.

MINES AND MINERALS.

MULTIFARIOUSNESS.
Validity of contract to convey mining location, In pleading, see "Equity,” $ 2.
see "Vendor and Purchaser," § 1.

MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS.
§ 1. Public mineral lands.

*A relocation of a mining claim admits the Jurisdiction of equity to avoid, see “Equity,”
validity of the prior location, which is neces-

§ 2.
sary to support a relocation, and a relocator
cannot maintain ejectment against the original
locator or his grantees on the ground that the

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
first location was void.-Zerres v. Vanina (C.
C. A.) 564.

Binding effect of state decision on federal court

as to contract with water company, see

"Courts," $ 1.
MISREPRESENTATION.

Regulation of railroads, see “Railroads,” $ 3.

Street railroads, see "Street Railroads.
By insured, see "Insurance," $ 2.

Water supply, see "Waters and Water Cours-

es," $ 1.
MONEY RECEIVED.

§ 1. Public improvements.

*Act Ohio May 12, 1886 (83 Ohio Laws, p.
Action of to recover benefits under contract in 146), authorizing cities of the fourth grade of
restraint of trade, see "Contracts," $ 1. the second class to contract with the owners of

waterworks for water supply for fire purposes,

etc., superseded all prior legislation as to cities
MORTGAGES.

of that class, and rendered inapplicable thereto
Construction of contract in general, see “Con- Laws, p. 11), requiring such contracts by mu-

the provision of Act Jan. 29, 1885 (82 Ohio
tracts," $ 2.

nicipal corporations generally to be submitted
Effect of proceedings in bankruptcy, see “Bank- to the qualified voters for ratification.-City of
ruptcy," $ 4.

Defiance v. McGonigale (C. C. A.) 689.
Estoppel of mortgagee to object to continuation

of business of bankrupt, see "Bankruptcy," 8 2. Torts.
$ 2.

*One who places an obstruction in a street by
of personal property, see “Chattel Mortgages.” authority from the proper municipal officers can
Of railroads, see "Railroads," § 2.

be held liable for an injury resulting to one
Priority of, in payment of claims of bankrupt, using the street only on the ground of negli-
see "Bankruptcy,” $ 7.

gence.-Sanford v. White (C. C. A.) 724.
§ 1. Construction and operation,

NAMES.
An after-acquired property clause in a mort-
gage given by a beet sugar manufacturing com- See “Trade-Marks and Trade-Names.
pany held not to bring under the mortgage, as
a part of the mortgagor's "plant," a large tract

NATIONAL BANKS.
of land subsequently acquired by it for the rais-
ing of beets, and lying 200 miles from its fac-
tory, which constituted the principal part of See “Banks and Banking,” $ 1.
the property mortgaged.-Old Colony Trust Co.
v. Standard Beet Sugar Co. (C. C.) 677.

NATURALIZATION.
§ 2. Rights and liabilities of parties.

See "Aliens," § 2.
*In an action by a transferee of a note, giv-
en by one partner, against another partner,
who assumed payment of the debt on a dissolu-

NAVIGABLE WATERS.
tion of the partnership, the fact that the note
was secured by a conveyance to the payee of See “Waters and Water Courses."
property the equitable title to which also passed
to the defendant in the dissolution is no de-

NAVIGATION.
fense; the conveyance being in effect a mort-
gage, which passed to plaintiff by assignment of Rules for preventing collisions, see "Collision,”
the note, and which will be satisfied by its pay-

$ 1.
ment.-Fish v. First Nat. Bank (C. C. A.) 524. Taking case from jury in action for, see "Trial,"

§ 1.
MOTIONS.

NEGLIGENCE.
Direction of verdict in civil actions, see “Trial,"

By particular classes of persons.
§ 1.
For remand of cause to state court, see “Remov- See “Carriers,” & 2; "Municipal Corporations,"
al of Causes," $ 4.

$ 2; "Railroads," $ 3.
Relating to pleadings, see "Pleading,” $ 3. Employers, see "Master and Servant,” s 1.

*Point annotated. See syllabus.

Error."

Condition or use of particular species of prop-

ORDERS.
erty, works, machinery, or other
instrumentalities.

Review of appealable orders, see "Appeal and
See "Railroads," $ 3; "Street Railroads," $ 1.
Vessels, liability of charterers, see “Shipping,"
$ 1.

PAROL EVIDENCE.
Vessels, liability of owners, see “Shipping," 8 2.

In civil actions, see "Evidence," $ 2.
Contributory negligence.

In criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law,"
Of person injured by operation of street rail-

8 1.
road, see "Street Railroads," § 1.

PARTIES.
NEW TRIAL.

Character, ground of jurisdiction, see "Appeal

and Erior," $ 1; "Courts," $ 1.
Opening or vacating judgment, see "Judgment," Death, ground for abatement, see “Ab nt
$ 2.

and Revival," $ 1.

Petition for involuntary bankruptcy by inter-
§ 1. Grounds.
The verdict of a jury in an action to recover

vener, see "Bankruptcy," $ 1.
the price of a commodity sold, in which defend- In particular actions or proceedings.
ant pleaded a set-off for breach of warranty, See "Admiralty,” $ 2; “Specific Performance,”
heldi" sustained by the evidence, and not con-

§ 3.
trary to the instructions on a motion for a new On appeal in bankruptcy, see "Bankruptcy,”
trial.-Petrified Bone Min. Co. y. Rogers (C.

$ 10.
C.) 445.

Persons concluded by judgment, see "Judg-
NONSUIT.

ment," S 6.

To construe will, see "Wills," $ 1.
Before trial, see "Dismissal and Nonsuit."
, ” To conveyances, contracts, or other transactions.

See “Assignments," § 3; “Contracts," $ 2.
NOVATION.

$ 1. Defendants.
As discharging surety, see “Principal and Sure-bers may be brought into court, under equity

the partnership assumed its payment.-Fish v. had been sustained by the Circuit Court of Ap-
First Nat. Bank (C. C. A.) 524.

peals, and the defense was its invalidity by rea-

son of anticipation.-Elite Pottery Co. v. De-
PATENTS.

ceco Co. (C. C. A.) 581.

The fact that the machine of a patent has
Collateral attack on judgment awarding inter- never been put into commercial use does not
est in patent, see "Judgment," $ 4.

preclude the owner of the patent from maintain-
Identification of, in decree on trial of issues, ing a suit in equity to enjoin its infringement.
see "Judgment," $ 1.

-Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper
§ 1. Patentability.

Bag Co. (C. C. A.) 741.
*A public knowledge and use of a device by *An order granting a preliminary injunction
others prior to the application for a patent to restrain infringement of a patent affirmed on
therefor being shown, the burden is cast upon appeal as within the discretion of the court.-
the patentee to furnish convincing proof that Scott v. Laas (C. C. A.) 764.
the anticipation was anticipated by him in mak-
ing the invention.– New England Motor Co. v. joined from infringing a patent for a sound-

*The sale by a defendant which has been en-
B. F. Sturtevant Co. (C. C. A.) 131.

producing apparatus of a talking machine of
§ 2. Reissues.

records which are capable of use with the other
*The Van Depoele reissued patent, No. 11,- elements of the patented apparatus, and which
872 (Original No. 495,443), for a traveling con- are intended to be and are so used by pur.
tact for electric railways, is void because of the chasers of such apparatus from complainant,
delay in making application therefor.-Thomson- constitutes a contributory infringement and a
Houston Electric Co. v. Sterling-Meaker Co. (C. violation of the injunction.-Victor Talking
C.) 589.

Mach. Co. v. Leeds & Catlin Co. (C. C.) 147.
§ 3. Title, conveyances, and contracts. Where large numbers of an article containing

*A parol license under a patent may be sus- a patented device are made and sold under cir-
tained and specifically enforced as between the cumstances which carry an implied license from
parties.-Cook v. Sterling Electric Co. (C. C. the patentee to use the same, in a suit by a
A.) 766.

subsequent owner of the patent for infringe-
*The manufacture and sale by a corporation ment against a user of one of such articles
for use of an article in which there was a de which has been long in use, the defendant can-
vice covered by a patent owned by its presi not be required to prove beyond a reasonable
dent held to carry an implied license under doubt that the article owned and used by him
such patent.-O'Rourke Engineering Const. Co. is one of those covered by the implied license.
v. McMullen (C. C.) 338.

O'Rourke Engineering Const. Co. v. McMul-

len (C. C.) 338.
*An assignment of patents and inventions
held not so wordd as to charge a third per-

*The replacing by a purchaser and user of a
son with notice that it was intended to cover patented article of a part which is peculiarly
inventions made wholly afterward, so as to subject to wear or destruction, and which does
preclude him from obtaining title to a patent not constitute a chief element of the patented
for such an invention.-Davis & Roesch Tem- invention, is within his rights as a repair, and
perature Controlling Co. v. Tagliabue (C. C.) cannot be considered a reconstruction to sub-
372.

ject him to liability as an infringer.-O'Rourke

Engineering Const. Co. v. McMullen (C. C.)
§ 4. Infringement.

338.
Where a patent includes claims for a process,
and also for the product of such process, the

Two wheels or pulleys connected together,
latter are to be construed in connection with, so as to revolve as one, by bolts or other close
and are limited in scope by the former. and fastenings, and a single wheel cast with two
are not infringed unless the process claims peripheral contacts, are mechanical equivalents,
are also infringed.-Downes v. Teter-Heany De where they operate in the same manner to pro-
velopment Co. (C. C. A.) 122.

duce the same result, and the substitution of
The Downes patent, No. 709,001, for an im- not avoid infringement.-- Lidgerwood Mfg. Co.

one for the other in a patented device does
proved process for applying asbestos insula-v. Lambert Hoisting Engine Co. (C. C.) 364.
tion to electrical conductors, construed, and hela
not infringed.-Downes v. Teter-Heany Develop- $ 5. Decisions on the validity, construc-
ment Co. (C. C. A.) 122.

tion, and infringement of partic-
The sustaining of a motion by defendant for

ular patents.
judgment on the pleadings in an action for in. The Condit patent, No. 358.545, for a stove
fringement of a patent, in which a plea of res lining, construed, and held not infringed.-Germ-
judicata was interposed, held error.-Robinson er Stove Co. v. Art Stove Co. (C. C. A.) 141.
v. American Car & Foundry Co. (C. C. A.)

The Campbell patent, No. 447,757, for an
331.

improvement in incandescent burners and meth-
*The granting of a preliminary injunction re- od of using the same, held void both for lack
straining infringement of a patent by a former of invention and anticipation.- Pennsylvania
licensee thereunder held within the discretion Globe Gaslight Co. v. Cleveland Vapor Light
of the court, where the validity of the patent Co. (C. C.) 583.

*Point annotated. See syllabus.

-

The North patent, No. 480,029, for a convey.

6.

Patents enumerated.
ing apparatus, held not anticipated, valid, and
infringed.–Lidgerwood Mfg.Co. v. Lambert

ENGLISH.
Hoisting Engine Co. (C. C.) 364.

1883.
The Moran patent, No. 500,149, for an air 420. Incandescent burner, cited....583, 588
lock, held not infringed as to claim 2, and void
for lack of invention as to claim 3.-O'Rourke

1886.
Engineering Const. Co. v. McMullen (C. C.) 8,097. Incandescent burner, held to antic-
338.

ipate patent No. 447,757...583, 587
The Barr patent, No. 514,843, for an air lock
for caissons, held void for lack of invention as

UNITED STATES.
to claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 8.-O'Rourke Engineer-

ORIGINAL.
ing Const. Co. v. McMullen (C. C.) 338.

7,526. Hook and eye package, cited. .... 599
The Downes patent, No. 534,785, for a process -78,265. Safety hatch, cited...

348
of applying asbestos insulation to 'electrical con- 117,833. Stove grate, cited.

144
ductors and its product, construed, and held 129,646. Mode of closing hatchways, cited 318
not infringed.-Downes v. Teter-H'eany Develop- 131,923. Hoisting-protector, cited..... 348
ment Co. (C. C. A.) 122.

134,169. Hatchway, cited...

348
The Dusedau patent, No. 548,973, for a ca-213,458. Insulation of electrical conductors,

172,202. Machine for boring wells, cited... 740
ble hoist, is void for lack of invention.- Lidger-
wood Mfg: Co. v. Lambert Hoisting Engine 219,737. Portable gasoline-fed Bunsen burn-

cited......

124
Co. (C. Č.) 364.

er, cited...

584
The Liddell patent, No. 558,969, for a paper 253,446. Insulation of electrical conductors,
bag machine, heid valid and infringed.Conti-

cited.....

124
nental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co. 255,663. Automatic hatchway-door opera-
(C. C. A.) 741.

tor, cited....

348
The Germer patent, No. 587,368, for a fire 266,404. Water closet, cited.

581
pot and grate for stoves, is void 'as to claim 285,097. Automatic safety-hatch for eleva-
1 for lack of invention, and as to claim 2 for in-

tor-shafts, cited....

348
definiteness of description.-Germer Stove Co. v. 313,849. Gas sealing door, cited......348, 354
Art Stove Co. (C. C. A.) 141.

321,966. Device for

operating elevator well
doors, cited.

355
The Way patent, No. 593,954, for a chest 358,545. Stove linings, limited, and as so
and neck protector, claim 2 held void for lack

limited, held not infringed.. 141, 142
of invention.-Way v. Hygienic Fleeced Under- 358,977. Door opener and closer for fur-
wear Co. (C. C.) 374.

naces, cited.....

354
The Burke patent, No. 631,518, for a frame 365,077. Gas sealing door, cited. .348, 354
for electric motors, is void for anticipation.-383,919. Insulation of electrical conductors,
New England Motor Co. v. B. F. Sturtevant

cited....

124
Co. (C. C. A.) 131.

401,394. Charging apparatus for blast-fur-
The Beck patent, No. 647,934, for a manifold-413,031. Tower for elevation and storage of