Distinguished in Patterson v. United States, 222 Fed. 643, 138 C. C. A. 123, holding in prosecution for conspiracy by officers and agents of manufacturers of patented cash register to restrain interstate trade, evidence of purchase of business of competitors and contracts of purchase are admissible.

Mere coincidence in time of bringing infringement suits is not proof of concerted action to injure competitor and conspiracy is violation of Sherman Anti-trust Act.

Approved in United States v. Eastman Kodak Co., 226 Fed. 69, combination of manufacturers and importers of photographic supplies acquiring exclusive right to sell in United States and Canada imported raw paper stock and forbidding dealers to handle goods of competitors or to sell at other than fixed resale price is violation of Sherman Act.

Contract by which manufacturer of patented article makes another corporation its exclusive sales agent is not violation of Sherman Anti-trust Act.

Distinguished in United States v. Kellogg Toasted Corn Flake Co., 222 Fed. 729, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 78, holding manufacturer cannot, in connection with absolute sale to jobbers, control price at which article in patented cartons is resold by jobber or retailer, without violation of Sherman Act.

What are illegal combinations within Sherman Anti-trust Act.
Note, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 721.

227 U. S. 39-50, 57 L. Ed. 407, 33 Sup. Ct. 209, CAMERON SEPTIC TANK CO. v. KNOXVILLE.

Although under Revised Statutes, section 4884, patent is for term of seventeen years, under section 4887, United States patent granted for invention previously patented in foreign country, is limited to expire with foreign patent.

Approved in dissenting opinion in Prest-O-Lite Co. v. Heiden, 219 Fed. 848, L. R. A. 1915F, 945, 135 C. C. A. 515, majority holding competitor refilling Prest-O-Lite tank or selling refilled tank without obliterating trademark is guilty of unfair competition.

227 U. S. 51-58, 57 L. Ed. 413, 33 Sup. Ct. 199, GRAY v. TAYLOR.

Supreme Court will follow territorial court in determination of questions relating to passage of act of territory.

Approved in Montoya v. Gonzales, 232 U. S. 377, 58 L. Ed. 650, 34 Sup. Ct. 413, following territorial court's construction of New Mexico statute authorizing intervention during pendency of suit, and allowing intervention after judgment in partition; Alzua v. Johnson, 231 U. S. 110, 58 L. Ed. 144, 34 Sup. Ct. 27, holding judge of Supreme Court of

Philippine Islands is not subject to civil action for official acts and following decision of such court ratifying act of judge in making change in judgment; Sanford v. Ainsa, 228 U. S. 707, 57 L. Ed. 1035, 33 Sup. Ct. 704, following decision of Supreme Court of territory of Arizona holding under Arizona Act 44 of 1899, § 10, transferring cases from District Court of one county to corresponding court of county newly organized, that former court retains jurisdiction until conditions of transfer were fulfilled; Luke v. Smith, 227 U. S. 381, 57 L. Ed. 561, 33 Sup. Ct. 356, following territorial court's construction of recording statute of Arizona that when debtor holds legal title in trust for others with whose funds it was purchased, purchaser at sale on execution with notice of rights takes subject to them; Cordova v. Folgueras Y Rijos, 227 U. S. 379, 57 L. Ed. 558, 33 Sup. Ct. 350, while Law Eleven of Toro was in force in Porto Rico as to recognition of rights of natural children, heirs have only rights of inheritance given by statute, and person not instituting suit to establish filiation within four years of majority as required by provision of Code of 1889, art. 137, cannot inherit.

227 U. S. 59-74, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 176, 57 L. Ed. 417, 33 Sup. Ct. 192, MICHIGAN CENT. R. R. CO. v. VREELAND.

Supreme Court will not dismiss writ of error to review decision of State court, although validity of Federal Employers' Liability Act has been determined adversely to plaintiff in error since allowance of writ, but will retain case to decide other questions in record.

Approved in McGowan v. Parish, 237 U. S. 292, 59 L. Ed. 961, 35 Sup. Ct. 543, holding under Judicial Code, § 250, appeal from court of Appeals of District of Columbia, invoked on substantial ground other than jurisdiction, extends to determination of all questions on record, irrespective of disposition of particular question on which appeal is taken; Ohio River etc. Ry. Co. v. Dittey (Ohio Tax Cases), 232 U. S. 587, 58 L. Ed. 743, 34 Sup. Ct. 372 (affirming 203 Fed. 539), upholding Federal jurisdiction of suit to enjoin collection of State. tax under Ohio statute of 1911, imposing tax on gross intrastate earnings of railroads, and holding statute is not void as denial of due process; Norfolk etc. Ry. Co. v. Earnest, 229 U. S. 116, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 172, 57 L. Ed. 1099, 33 Sup. Ct. 654, applying rule in action for injuries under Federal Employers' Liability Act; Cleveland etc. Ry. Co. v. Hirsch, 204 Fed. 854, 123 C. C. A. 145, Federal court having jurisdiction of suit for cancellation of contract as one arising under Federal law, may determine validity of contract under State law; Cincinnati etc. Traction Co. v. American Bridge Co., 202 Fed. 186, 120 C. C. A. 398, denying motion to dismiss suit to enforce lien for contract price of bridge under Ohio statute subsequently declared void, and directing money judgment.

Federal Employers' Liability Act of 1908, relating to liability of railroads to employees injured while engaged in interstate commerce, supersedes State legislation on same subject, and such act of Congress cannot be pieced out by resorting to local statutes of State of procedure or that of injury.

Approved in St. Louis etc. Ry. Co. v. Hesterly, 228 U. S. 704, 57 L. Ed. 1033, 33 Sup. Ct. 703, following rule; Chicago etc. Ry. Co. v. Devine, 239 U. S. 54, 60 L. Ed. 142, 36 Sup. Ct. 28, holding Federal Employers' Liability Act controls, to exclusion of State statutes, action for injuries to employee engaged in interstate commerce; Taylor v. Taylor, 232 U. S. 368, 58 L. Ed. 641, 34 Sup. Ct. 350, 6 N. C. C. A. 448, holding widow's right of action for death of employee in interstate commerce is derived from Federal Employers' Liability Act, whether based upon section 1 of original act or upon section 9 added by amendment of 1910, and father of deceased is not entitled to share in amount recovered; Simpson v. Shepard, 230 U. S. 409, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 18, 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1151, 57 L. Ed. 1545, 33 Sup. Ct. 729, holding State may, in absence of congressional action, regulate intrastate rates of interstate carrier, although relations between interstate and intrastate rates are thereby disturbed; St. Louis etc. Ry. Co. v. Seale, 229 U. S. 158, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 156, 57 L. Ed. 1133, 33 Sup. Ct. 651, holding in action for death of employee engaged in interstate commerce, Federal Employers' Liability Act applies, and personal representative alone may maintain action; Missouri etc. Ry. Co. v. Harriman Bros., 227 U. S. 672, 57 L. Ed. 698, 33 Sup. Ct. 397, upholding stipulation in contract for interstate shipment requiring suit to be brought within ninety days from happening of loss or damage; Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. Knapp, 233 Fed. 953, 147 C. C. A. 624, holding action for injuries to employee engaged in repairing bridge used in interstate and intrastate commerce must be based on Federal Employers' Liability Act, not on Michigan Workmen's Compensation Act; American Brake Shoe & Foundry Co. v. Pere Marquette R. Co., 223 Fed. 1020, validity of contract between shipper and carrier limiting liability for loss of interstate shipment is Federal question to be determined under general common law, and is not within field of State law or regulation; Peek v. Boston etc. R. R. Co., 223 Fed. 450, Federal Employers' Liability Act controls action for injuries where complaint states cause of action under that act and also under State act and alleges parties were engaged in interstate commerce, and Judicial Code, § 28, prohibits removal to Federal court; Smith v. Camas Prairie Ry. Co., 216 Fed. 800, action for death brought in State court under Federal Employers' Liability Act is not removable, whether facts are sufficient to state cause of action under such act or not; Mutual Film Co. v. Industrial Commission, 215 Fed. 140, upholding Federal jurisdiction. of suit to enjoin enforcement of Ohio act providing for board of censors of motion picture films, alleged void; Rail etc. Coal Co. v. Yaple,

214 Fed. 277, upholding Federal jurisdiction of suit by West Virginia corporation to enjoin Ohio Industrial Commission from enforcing Ohio act of 1914, regulating weighing of coal at mine, alleged void as impairing obligation of contract; United States v. Utah Power etc. Co., 209 Fed. 559, 126 C. C. A. 376, upholding act of 1896 authorizing Secretary of Interior to grant right of way upon public lands and forest reservations to electric power companies; Smith v. Industrial Accident Commission, 26 Cal. App. 566, 147 Pac. 602, denying recovery under Workmen's Compensation Act for injuries to employee engaged in interstate commerce; Flanders v. Georgia Southern etc. Ry. Co., 68 Fla. 484, 488, 67 South. 69, 70, Federal Employers' Liability Act controls action for death of interstate employee, and action must be brought by personal representative, not by father for death of minor child; Staley v. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 268 Ill. 370, L. R. A. 1916A, 450, 109 N. E. 347, holding action for death of interstate employee is controlled by Federal Employers' Liability Act of 1908, and not by State Workmen's Compensation Act; Wagner v. Chicago etc. R. Co., 265 Ill. 252, 106 N. E. 812, holding provision of Federal Employers' Liability Act of 1908 that contract exempting carrier from liability for negligence is void applies in action for injuries to interstate employee and precludes defense that acceptance of benefits as members of relief association released carrier from liability; Southern Ry. Co. v. Howerton, 182 Ind. 218, 105 N. E. 1028, holding Federal Employers' Liability Act controls action for injuries to interstate employee and reversing judgment for erroneous instructions as to assumption of risk; Chicago etc. Ry. Co. v. Theis, 96 Kan. 497, 152 Pac. 620, holding in action by carrier to recover undercharges on interstate shipment, setoff for damages to another interstate shipment cannot be allowed where conditions precedent to recovery of such damages, as stipulated in contract, were disregarded; Ray v. Missouri etc. Ry. Co., 96 Kan. 10, 149 Pac. 398, upholding stipulation in contract for interstate shipment requiring action for damages for injuries or delays to be brought within ninety-one days; Cole v. Atchison etc. Ry. Co., 92 Kan. 135, 139 Pac. 1178, holding in action for injuries to employee sealing refrigerator-cars, ruling of lower court that proof was insufficient to go to jury under Federal Employers' Liability Act of 1908, but was sufficient under State statutes was not prejudicial error in view of similarity of such statutes; Louisville etc. R. Co. v. Strange's Admx., 156 Ky. 444, 161 S. W. 242, holding Federal Employers' Liability Act supersedes State statute and furnishes basis of recovery in action for death of employee engaged in interstate commerce; South Covington etc. St. Ry. Co. v. Finan's Admx., 153 Ky. 344, 155 S. W. 743, holding in action for death of employee engaged in interstate commerce, Federal Employers' Liability Act abrogates Ohio statute upon which action was based; Illinois Cent.

R. Co. v. Doherty's Admr., 153 Ky. 374, 47 L. R. A. (N. S.) 31, 155 S. W. 1123, petition in action for death of interstate employee under Federal Employers' Liability Act failing to allege decedent left beneficiaries designated by act is defective; Penny v. New Orleans Great Northern R. Co., 135 La. 967, 66 South. 314, holding Federal Employers' Liability Act supersedes State statute in action for death of interstate employee, and widow cannot maintain action in personal capacity and as tutrix of minor children, but action must be brought by personal representative; Corbett v. Boston & M. R. R. Co., 219 Mass. 356, 107 N. E. 62, State court having jurisdiction of action by widow under State law for death of husband and of action by widow as administratrix under Federal Employers' Liability Act, may determine which law applies and plaintiff is not required to elect; Fenette v. Pere Marquette R. Co., 175 Mich. 674, 144 N. W. 835, recovery for injuries received in collision by employee on intrastate train carrying cars billed to point outside of State, must be under Federal Employers' Liability Act; Sells v. Atchison etc. Ry. Co., 266 Mo. 178, 181 S. W. 112, holding action for death of interstate employee must be brought by personal representative under Federal Employers' Liability Act and cannot be brought by widow, under State act; Thompson v. Wabash Ry. Co., 262 Mo. 480, 171 S. W. 367, holding action for death of locomotive fireman on train of empty cars on interstate railroad must be brought under Federal Employers' Liability Act of 1908; McIntosh v. St. Louis etc. R. Co., 182 Mo. App. 295, 168 S. W. 822, allowing recovery in action for injuries to employee repairing bridge, where evidence discloses employee was engaged in interstate commerce, although action was not based upon Federal act; Vaughan v. St. Louis etc. R. Co., 177 Mo. App. 161, 164 S. W. 146, holding in action for death of interstate employee by widow, filing of appearance reciting appointment as administratrix and adopting proceedings in her behalf, did not cure error in suing in individual capacity; Lawson v. HalifaxTonopah Min. Co., 36 Nev. 603, 135 Pac. 615, under Laws of 1912, § 5652, providing no indemnity contract nor acceptance of benefits shall be defense to action for injuries, release for injuries amounting to twelve hundred dollars in consideration of thirty-six dollars does not prevent recovery of damages; Shannon v. Boston etc. R. R. Co., 77 N. H. 351, 92 Atl. 168, holding two year limitation of Federal Employers' Liability Act, § 6, applies in action for injuries to interstate employee; Missouri etc. Ry. Co. v. Lenahan, 39 Okl. 287, 135 Pac. 385, holding Federal Employers' Liability Act of 1908 supersedes State law, and personal representative, not surviving widow, has right of action for death of interstate employee; St. Louis etc. R. Co. v. Bilby, 35 Okl. 598, 130 Pac. 1094, holding provision of State Constitution, art. XXIII, § 9, avoiding contracts stipulating for notice other than