Изображения страниц



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

§ 1. Public mineral lands.

*A relocation of a mining claim admits the
validity of the prior location, which is neces-
sary to support a relocation, and a relocator
cannot maintain ejectment against the original
locator or his grantees on the ground that the


Jurisdiction of equity to avoid, see "Equity,"
§ 2.


first location was void.-Zerres v. Vanina (C. Binding effect of state decision on federal court

C. A.) 564.


By insured, see "Insurance," § 2.


as to contract with water company, see
"Courts," § 1.

Regulation of railroads, see "Railroads," § 3.
Street railroads, see "Street Railroads."

Water supply, see "Waters and Water Cours-
es," § 1.

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.


Construction of contract in general, see "Con-
tracts," § 2.

Effect of proceedings in bankruptcy, see "Bank-
ruptcy," § 4.

Estoppel of mortgagee to object to continuation
of business of bankrupt, see "Bankruptcy,"
§ 2.

Of personal property, see "Chattel Mortgages."
Of railroads, see "Railroads," § 2.
Priority of, in payment of claims of bankrupt,
see "Bankruptcy," § 7.

§ 1. Construction and operation.

An after-acquired property clause in a mort-

the second class to contract with the owners of
waterworks for water supply for fire purposes,
etc., superseded all prior legislation as to cities
of that class, and rendered inapplicable thereto
the provision of Act Jan. 29, 1885 (82 Ohio
Laws, p. 11), requiring such contracts by mu-
nicipal corporations generally to be submitted
to the qualified voters for ratification.-City of
Defiance v. McGonigale (C. C. A.) 689.
8 2. Torts.

*One who places an obstruction in a street by
authority from the proper municipal officers can
be held liable for an injury resulting to one
using the street only on the ground of negli-
gence.-Sanford v. White (C. C. A.) 724.


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
of land subsequently acquired by it for the rais-
ing of beets, and lying 200 miles from its fac-


See "Aliens," § 2.



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.
§ 2. Rights and liabilities of parties.
*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-
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-
fense; the conveyance being in effect a mort-
gage, which passed to plaintiff by assignment of
the note, and which will be satisfied by its pay-
ment.-Fish v. First Nat. Bank (C. C. A.) 524.


Direction of verdict in civil actions, see "Trial,"
§ 1.

For remand of cause to state court, see "Remov-
al of Causes," § 4.

Relating to pleadings, see "Pleading," § 3.


Rules for preventing collisions, see "Collision,”
§ 1.
Taking case from jury in action for, see "Trial,"
§ 1.


By particular classes of persons.
See "Carriers," § 2; "Municipal Corporations,"
§ 2; "Railroads," § 3.

Employers, see "Master and Servant," § 1.
*Point annotated. See syllabus.

[blocks in formation]

Character, ground of jurisdiction, see "Appeal
and Error," § 1; "Courts," § 1.

Opening or vacating judgment, see "Judgment," Death, ground for abatement, see "Abatement
§ 2.

1. Grounds.

The verdict of a jury in an action to recover
the price of a commodity sold, in which defend-
ant pleaded a set-off for breach of warranty.
held sustained by the evidence, and not con-
trary to the instructions on a motion for a new
trial. Petrified Bone Min. Co. v. Rogers (C.
C.) 445.


Before trial, see "Dismissal and Nonsuit."


and Revival," § 1.

Petition for involuntary bankruptcy by inter-
vener, see "Bankruptcy," § 1.

In particular actions or proceedings.
See "Admiralty," § 2; "Specific Performance,"
§ 3.

On appeal in bankruptcy, see "Bankruptcy,"

Persons concluded by judgment, see "Judg-
ment," § 6.

To construe will, see "Wills," § 1.

To conveyances, contracts, or other transactions.
See "Assignments," § 3; "Contracts," § 2.
§ 1. Defendants.

*A voluntary association having many mem-

As discharging surety, see "Principal and Sure-bers may be brought into court, under equity
ty,” § 3.


[blocks in formation]


In civil actions, see "Evidence," § 3.


rule 48, by service on its officers and such of its
members as are known and can be conveniently
reached, sufficient being served to represent all
the diverse interests.-Evenson v. Spaulding (C.

C. A.) 517.

[blocks in formation]


*Under Carter's Alaska Code, p. 145, § 1,
which abolishes the distinction between ac
tions at law and suits in equity, the holder
of a note given by one partner may bring suit
Specific performance of option to convey land, in his own name for recovery of the debt
see "Specific Performance," § 2.
against another partner, who on dissolution of
*Point annotated. See syllabus.

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

[blocks in formation]

*The Van Depoele reissued patent, No. 11,872 (Original No. 495,443), for a traveling contact for electric railways, is void because of the delay in making application therefor.-ThomsonHouston Electric Co. v. Sterling-Meaker Co. (C. C.) 589.

§ 3. Title, conveyances, and contracts.

*A parol license under a patent may be sustained and specifically enforced as between the parties. Cook v. Sterling Electric Co. (C. C. A.) 766.

*The manufacture and sale by a corporation for use of an article in which there was a device covered by a patent owned by its president held to carry an implied license under such patent.-O'Rourke Engineering Const. Co. v. McMullen (C. C.) 338.

*An assignment of patents and inventions held not so worded as to charge a third person with notice that it was intended to cover inventions made wholly afterward, so as to preclude him from obtaining title to a patent for such an invention.-Davis & Roesch Temperature Controlling Co. v. Tagliabue (C. C.) 372.

[blocks in formation]

peals, and the defense was its invalidity by reason of anticipation.-Elite Pottery Co. v. Dececo Co. (C. C. A.) 581.

The fact that the machine of a patent has never been put into commercial use does not preclude the owner of the patent from maintaining a suit in equity to enjoin its infringement. -Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co. (C. C. A.) 741.

*An order granting a preliminary injunction to restrain infringement of a patent affirmed on appeal as within the discretion of the court.Scott v. Laas (C. C. A.) 764.

*The sale by a defendant which has been enjoined from infringing a patent for a soundproducing apparatus of a talking machine of records which are capable of use with the other elements of the patented apparatus, and which are intended to be and are so used by purchasers of such apparatus from complainant, constitutes a contributory infringement and a violation of the injunction.-Victor Talking Mach. Co. v. Leeds & Catlin Co. (C. C.) 147.

Where large numbers of an article containing a patented device are made and sold under circumstances which carry an implied license from the patentee to use the same, in a suit by a subsequent owner of the patent for infringement against a user of one of such articles which has been long in use, the defendant cannot be required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the article owned and used by him is one of those covered by the implied license.— O'Rourke Engineering Const. Co. v. McMullen (C. C.) 338.

*The replacing by a purchaser and user of a patented article of a part which is peculiarly subject to wear or destruction, and which does not constitute a chief element of the patented invention, is within his rights as a repair, and cannot be considered a reconstruction to subject him to liability as an infringer.-O'Rourke Engineering Const. Co. v. McMullen (C. C.) 338.

Two wheels or pulleys connected together, so as to revolve as one, by bolts or other close fastenings, and a single wheel cast with two peripheral contacts, are mechanical equivalents, where they operate in the same manner to produce the same result, and the substitution of one for the other in a patented device does not avoid infringement.-Lidgerwood Mfg. Co. v. Lambert Hoisting Engine Co. (C. C.) 364.

The Downes patent, No. 709.001, for an improved process for applying asbestos insulation to electrical conductors, construed, and held not infringed.-Downes v. Teter-Heany Develop-§ ment Co. (C. C. A.) 122.

The sustaining of a motion by defendant for judgment on the pleadings in an action for infringement of a patent, in which a plea of res judicata was interposed, held error.-Robinson v. American Car & Foundry Co. (C. C. A.) 331.


Decisions on the validity, construction, and infringement of particular patents.

The Condit patent, No. 358.545, for a stove lining, construed, and held not infringed.-Germer Stove Co. v. Art Stove Co. (C. C. A.) 141.

The Campbell patent, No. 447,757, for an improvement in incandescent burners and method of using the same, held void both for lack of invention and anticipation.-Pennsylvania Globe Gaslight Co. v. Cleveland Vapor Light Co. (C. C.) 583. *Point annotated. See syllabus.

*The granting of a preliminary injunction restraining infringement of a patent by a former licensee thereunder held within the discretion of the court, where the validity of the patent

The North patent, No. 480,029, for a conveying apparatus, held not anticipated, valid, and infringed.-Lidgerwood Mfg. Co. v. Lambert Hoisting Engine Co. (C. C.) 364.

The Moran patent, No. 500,149, for an air lock, held not infringed as to claim 2, and void for lack of invention as to claim 3.-O'Rourke Engineering Const. Co. v. McMullen (C. C.) 338.

The Barr patent, No. 514,843, for an air lock for caissons, held void for lack of invention as to claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 8.-O'Rourke Engineering Const. Co. v. McMullen (C. C.) 338.

The Downes patent, No. 534,785, for a process of applying asbestos insulation to electrical conductors and its product, construed, and held not infringed.-Downes v. Teter-Heany Development Co. (C. C. A.) 122.

The Dusedau patent, No. 548,973, for a cable hoist, is void for lack of invention.-Lidgerwood Mfg. Co. v. Lambert Hoisting Engine Co. (C. C.) 364.

The Liddell patent, No. 558,969, for a paper bag machine, held valid and infringed.-Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co. (C. C. A.) 741.

The Germer patent, No. 587,368, for a firepot and grate for stoves, is void as to claim 1 for lack of invention, and as to claim 2 for indefiniteness of description.-Germer Stove Co. v. Art Stove Co. (C. C. A.) 141.

The Way patent, No. 593,954, for a chest and neck protector, claim 2 held void for lack of invention.-Way v. Hygienic Fleeced Underwear Co. (C. C.) 374.

6. Patents enumerated.

420. Incandescent burner, cited....583, 588


8,097. Incandescent burner, held to anticipate patent No. 447,757...583, 587



348 144

7,526. Hook and eye package, cited..... 599
78,265. Safety hatch, cited......
117,833. Stove grate, cited..
129,646. Mode of closing hatchways, cited 348
131,923. Hoisting-protector, cited.
134,169. Hatchway, cited..
172,202. Machine for boring wells, cited... 740
213,458. Insulation of electrical conductors,

219,737. Portable gasoline-fed Bunsen burn-
er, cited....
Insulation of electrical conductors,

255,663. Automatic hatchway-door opera-
tor, cited....

266,404. Water closet, cited.
285,097. Automatic safety-hatch for eleva-
tor-shafts, cited..

348 348







313,849. Gas sealing door, cited......348, 354
321,966. Device for operating elevator well
doors, cited.
358,545. Stove linings, limited, and as so


limited, held not infringed..141, 142 Door opener and closer for furnaces, 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 Co. (C. C. A.) 131.


401,394. Charging apparatus for blast-furnaces, cited....

The Beck patent, No. 647,934, for a manifold-413,031. Tower for elevation and storage of ing sales book and holder, held void for anticipation.-American Sales Book Co. v. Carter- 415,212. Crume Co. (C. C. A.) 333.

The Ripley & Wadsworth patents, Nos. 661,025 and 661,024, for a process and apparatus, respectively, for making plate prism glass, held valid and infringed. Patent No. 661,023, to the same patentees, for the product of such process and apparatus as a new article of manufacture, held void for anticipation.-Pressed Prism Plate Glass Co. v. Continuous Glass Press Co. (C. C.) 355.



[blocks in formation]

The Piez & Beaumont patents, Nos. 668,960, and 688,111, for storage appartus, held void 434,550. for lack of patentable invention.-Dodge Coal 447,757. Storage Co. v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. (C. C. A.) 738.

The Bliss patent, No. 669,574, for a frame for electric motors, is void for anticipation.-New England Motor Co. v. B. F. Sturtevant Co. (C. C. A.) 131.






Conveying apparatus, cited.
Incandescent burner claim 2, held
void for lack of invention and
anticipation by British patent
No. 8097 of 1886..
Insulation of electrical conductors,
... 124


Device for closing elevator gates, cited.... Conveying apparatus held not anticipated, valid and infringed. 364, 365, 368, 371, 372 487,865. Storage apparatus, cited.. 739 *Point annotated. See syllabus.

The Richardson patent, No. 676,824, for a hook and eye package, construed, and held not infringed.-De Long Hook & Eye Co. v. Francis Hook & Eye & Fastener Co. (C. C.) 597.

[blocks in formation]

.338, 339

517,359. Manifolding salesbook and holder,
held to anticipate patent No.
..333, 334
534,785. Insulation of electrical conductors,
construed, and held not infring-
ed..... .....122, 123, 124, 126
548,973. Cable-hoist, held void for lack of
invention.......364, 365, 368, 372
558,969. Paper bag machine held valid and
....741, 742
587,366. Fire pots and grates for stoves,
claim 1, held void for lack of in-
vention; claim 2, held void for
indefiniteness of description..

141, 142

374, 375

593,954. Chest and neck protector, claim 2,
held void for lack of invention..

594,286. Casting composite, cited.
598,497. Paper bag machine, held to in-
fringe 558,969..


For defective equipment of railroad cars, see
"Railroads," § 3.

Review in action to recover penalty as depend-
ent on character of action, see "Appeal and
Error," § 1.


Particular causes or means of injury.
Negligent condition of vessel, see "Shipping,"
§ 2.
Operation of railroads, see "Railroads," § 3.
Operation of street railroad, see "Street Rail-
roads," § 1.

Particular classes of persons injured.
Employé, see "Master and Servant," § 1.
Traveler on highway, see "Municipal Corpora-
tions," § 2.

Traveler on highway crossing railroad, see
"Railroads," § 3.


Taking case from jury, see "Trial," § 1.


331 See "Property."

..741, 742

614,819. Insulation of electrical conductors,

631,320. Air lock for caissons, cited..
631,518. Electric motor frame, held void for



.. 131
641,373. Telephone switch board, cited.... 767
647,934. Manifolding salesbook and holder,
held void for anticipation...... 333
661,023. Plate prism glass, held void for
... 355
661,024. Apparatus for making plate prism
glass, held valid and infringed.. 355
661,025. Process for making plate prism

glass, held valid and infringed.. 355
661,707. Fire pot for stoves, cited........ 145
668,960. Storage apparatus, held void for
lack of patentable invention....
738, 739, 740
669,574. Electric motor frame, cited..... 131
676,824. Hook and eye package, construed
and held not infringed...

688,111. Storage apparatus, held void for
lack of patentable invention....

738, 740
709,001. Insulation of electrical conductors,
construed and held not infringed
122, 126
716.698. Hook and eye package, cited..... 599
757,754. Railway-rail stay, cited......... 764


11,872. Traveling contact for electric rail-


In bankruptcy, see "Bankruptcy," §§ 1, 2.


Right to enjoin, see "Injunction," §§ 1-3.


Objections to parties in action to recover pro-
ceeds of oil delivered to pipe line company,
see "Parties," § 2.


In actions by or against particular classes of
See "Corporations," § 2.
Trustee in bankruptcy, see "Bankruptcy," § 6.
In particular actions or proceedings.
See "Equity," § 2; "Removal of Causes," § 3.
For infringement of patent, see "Patents," § 4.
Indictment or criminal information or com-
plaint, see "Indictment and Information."
Review of decisions and pleading in appellate

ways, held void.......589, 500, 592 Appealability of order striking pleading, see
"Appeal and Error," § 1.


Of insurance, see "Insurance," § 5.
Of price of land sold, see "Vendor and Purchas-
er," § 3.

1. Demurrer or exception.

*A general demurrer to a count in a declara-
tion cannot be sustained because it contains
a single averment.-Latham v. Staten Island
Ry. Co. (C. C.) 235.

*Point annotated. See syllabus.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »