« 이전계속 »
to action to annul a reconveyance.-Pacific Im- to inflict resulting injury.-Westre v. Chicago, provement Co. v. Duson, 2 F.(20) 261.
M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 2 F.(20) 227. Dismissal of bill to annul special acts of reconveyance held warranted as to land in cer- II. PROXIMATE CAUSE OF INJURY. tain parish.-Id.
-56 (1) (U.S.D.C.Wash.) "Proximate cause"
of injury.-Lorang v. Alaska S. S. Co., 2 F. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.. (20) 300.
IV. ACTIONS. See Cou
(A) Right of Action, Parties, Preliminary IX. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.
Proceedings, and Pleading. (E) Assessments for Benefits, and Special Colll(l) (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) General allegaTaxes.
tions in pleading may be sufficient.-Kaemmerww412 (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Cost of public im- ling v. Athletic Mining & Smelting Co., 2 F.
(2d) 574. provements of general character must be assessed against all property in municipality.-Fi-! 12 (U.S.C.C.A.S.D.) Allegation of "gross delity Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Kansas City negligence" held without legal significance.v. Swope, 2 F.(20) 676.
Westre v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 2 F. 428 (U.S.C.C.A.MO.) Assessment of abut
(B) Evidence, ting property for improvement on another street not justified.-Fidelity Nat. Bank & Co 12!(!) (App.D.C.) Burden of proof on Trust Co. of Kansas City v. Swope, 2 F.(20) complaining party.–Bennett V. Washington 676.
Terminal Co., 2 F.(20) 913. 429 (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Cost of improvements Om 134(1) (App.D.C.) Proof by competentermay be assessed against abutting property.- idence essential.- Bennett v. Washington TerFidelity Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Kansas City minal Co., 2 F.(20) 913. v. Swope, 2 F.(20) 676.
en 134(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Finding of negli450(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Semipublic im- gence held supported by _ evidence.-Hobbs, provements need not be assessed on abutting Wall & Co. v. Petterson, 2 F.(20) 594. property only, nor on property in whole cityFidelity Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Kansas City NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS. v. Swope, 2 F.(20) 676.
Benefit district and assessments held arbi- See Bills and Notes. trary and unreasonable.-Id.
NONSUIT, XIII. FISCAL MANAGEMENT, PUBLIC
DEBT, SECURITIES, AN TAXATION. See Dismissal and Nonsuit.
OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE. of Abbeville, 2 F.(20) 559.
ell (U.S.D.C.Fla.) Indictment for assault (C) Bonds and Other Securities, and sink- on officer held to sufficiently charge knowledge ing Funds.
of official character.-U. S. v. Gay, 2 F.(20) 933 (U.S.D.C.Ark.) Officers cannot bind 635. municipality by invalid evidences of indebted- Indictment for interfering with prohibition ness.-Filbert v. Arkansas & Missouri Highway officer making search held not defective for Dist., 2 F.(2d) 114.
failure to aver circumstances showing authority
to make search.-Id.
See Clerks of Courts; Receivers.
PARDON. U. S. v. McKay, 2 F.(20) 257.
O4 (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Court may postpone im
position of sentence for any lawful purpose, NATIONAL BANKS.
but cannot exercise such right as pardon or
parole.-Musick v. U. S., 2 F.(20) 711. See Banks and Banking, em 248–287.
PARENT AND CHILD.
For parties on appeal and review of rulings as
to parties, see Appeal and Error.
For parties to particular proceedings or instruOur 34 (U.S.D.C.Tex.) United States intent, ments, see also the various specific topics. impairing power of state in drainage matters, not implied.--U. S. v. Brazoria County Drain
III. NEW PARTIES AND CHANGE OF
PARTIES. age Dist. No. 3, 2 F.(20) 861.
State and county drainage districts not re- Om 40 (2) (U.S.D.C.La.) Intervention not perquired to obtain approval of War Department. missible in action for money judgment.-Pure --Id.
Oil Co. v. Standard Oil Co., 2 F.(20) 260. NEGLIGENCE. See Master and Servant, m108–286; Rail
PARTNERSHIP. roads, cm327–351.
IV. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES AS TO
THIRD PERSONS. 1. ACTS OR OMISSIONS CONSTITUTING NEGLIGENCE.
(D) Actions by or Against Firms or Part(A) Personal Conduct in General.
199 (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Action for injuries to Omall (U.S.C.C.A.S.D.) “Willful and wanton cattle must be brought in name of all partners. negligence” implies intent to do act, but not -Midland Oil Co. v. Moore, 2 F.(20) 34.
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
THEREON. (C) Distribution and Settlement Between C 101 (App.D.C.) One cannot read limitaPartners and Their Representatives.
tions into claims broadly stated.-In re Levy, Om311(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Porto Rico) Dissolution 2 F.(20) 939. agreement construed and held to entitle partner Patent Office should give claims broadest inselling stock to contemporaneous payment of terpretation of which they are reasonably caprice.-Gandia v. Porto Rico Fertilizer Co., 2 pable.-Id. F.(20) 641.
w 104 (App.D.C.) Doubt as to whether claims Dissolution agreement drawn by counsel for should be allow resolved in applicant's favor.
In re Levy, 2 F.(20) 939. one partner may be construed most favorably to other partner.-Id.
Om 112 (3) (U.S.C.C.A.Colo.) Patent presumes novelty, and burden on infringer to prove in
validity with reasonable clearness.-Zip Mfg. PATENTS.
Co. v. Pusch, 2 F.(20) 828.
Om 112(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Kan.) Fact of issuance
of patent and popular acclaim raise presump(A) Invention.
tion of validity.-Acme Foundry & Machine Co. 19 (U.S.D.C.Del.) Mere variation in pro
v. Oil Well Improvements Co., 2 F.(20) 530. portions of elements of a composition is not
Om I 14 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Suit to adjudicate rights invention.-Bituminous Products Co. v. Head
of owners of interfering patents in nature of ley Good Roads Co., 2 F.(20) 83.
suit to set aside judgment.--Miehle Printing New product must differ from old, otherwise
Press & Mfg. Co. v. Miller Saw-Trimmer Co., than in degree.-Id.
2 F.(22) 744. 26(2) (U.S.D.C.III.) New combination of
Decree of Court of Appeals of District of old elements, to be patentable, must produce
Columbia in interference proceeding presumed new result as effect of the combination.
correct not set aside except on clearest proof. Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge Co. v. City of
-Id. Chicago, 2 F.(2d) _601.
Evidence held insufficient to overcome prem30 (1) (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Invention must be
sumntion in favor of correctness of previous completed by reduction to practice.-Lowe v.
decree of Court of Appeals of District of CoPacific Gas & Electric Co., 2 F.(20) 157.
lumbia in interference proceeding.-Id. 36 (U.S.D.C.Del.) Acquiescence as evidence of validity.--Bituminous Products Co. v. Head
V. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY OF LETley Good Roads Co., 2 F.(20) 83.
TERS PATENT. (B) Novelty.
118 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Patentee need not dis
close accessories or auxiliary devices used in em 42 (U.S.C.C.A.Colo.) Combination of old
connection with invention-Miehle Printing elements to affect old result in better manner
Press & Mfg. Co. v. Miller Saw-Trimmer Co., may amount to invention.-Zip Mfg. Co. v.
2 F.(20) 744. Pusch, 2 F.(20) 828.
Om 129 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Patentable "utility," Om42 (U.S.C.C.A.Kan.) Patent may possess novelty and validity, though consisting only of MacGregor Co. v. Vaco
Grip Co., 2 F.(20) 655.
within rule estopping infringer defined.-Sandy combination of prior arts.-Acme Foundry & Machine Co. v. Oil Well Improvements Co., 2
IX. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF F.(20) 530.
LETTERS PATENT. mm 45 (U.S.C.C.A.Kan.) Fact of issuance of
(A) In General. patent- and popular acclaim raise presumption of novelty.-Acme Foundry & Machine Co. v. Om 159 (U.S.C.C.A.Colo.) Evidence of anticiOil Well Improvements Co., 2 F.(20) 530. pation held admissible as to construction, but
not competent as to validity.--Zip Mfg. Co. v. (C) Utility.
Pusch, 2 F.(20) 828. 49 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Commercial success
em 162 (U.S.C.C.A.Colo.) Statements in patand defendants' close imitation held to show
ent as to condition of prior art properly conutility.–Sandy MacGregor Co. v. Vaco Grip
sidered on question of validity.--Zip Mfg. Co. Co., 2 F.(20) 655.
v. Pusch, 2 F.(20) 828. (D) Anticipation.
(B) Limitation of Claims. Om62 (U.S.D.C.Minn.) Oral proof of prior
Om 168 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Patent Office
reason for allowance of claim not within rule use must be beyond reasonable doubt.-Rousso v. Boyle, 2 F.(20) 299.
of estoppel-W. S. Godwin Co. v. International Om66 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Patent issued to same
Steel Tie Co., 2 F.(20) 198. inventor on same date not considered as part of
X. TITLE, CONVEYANCES, AND CONprior art.-Sandy MacGregor Co. Vaco
(A) Rights of Patentees in General. ence to prior art depends upon date of invention 183 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Preliminary injunction rather than patent.-Sandy MacGregor Co. v. issued to restrain assignment of right to pracVaco Grip Co., 2 F.(20) 655.
tice invention, but not to prevent defendant it
self from practicing invention.-Carpenter III. PERSONS ENTITLED TO PATENTS.
Chemical Co. v. Lansdale Silk Hosiery Co., 2 Em90(2) (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Inventor must
use due diligence in reduction to practice.--Lowe v.
XII. INFRINGEMENT. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 2 F.(20) 157. ww91 (1) (App.D.C.) Junior party, in interfer
(A) What Constitutes Infringement. ence proceeding, had burden of proving that
261 (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Patentee held estopped he, and not senior party, had made invention.
to claim infringement.-Lowe v. Pacific Gas & -Pinkerton v. Gibson, 2 F.(20) 937.
Electric Co., 2 F.(20) 157. ww91 (3) (App.D.C.) Evidence held not to prove disclosure of invention by junior to sen
(C) Suits in Equity. ior party.-Pinkerton v. Gibson, 2 F.(20) 937. @aw 28! (U.S.D.C.III.) Authority given courts
92 (U.S.D.C.III.) Joint invention.-Scher- of equity to increase damages in infringement zer Rolling Lift Bridge Co. v. City of Chicago, suits within power of Congress.-Taylor v. 2 F.(20) 601.
Ford Motor Co., 2 F.(20) 473. 2 F.(20)-67
Sana 308 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Refusal to dissolve 1,220,444. Improvement in basic open hearth preliminary injunction held not abuse of dis
claims 1, 2, 5, and 8, cretion.-Owen v. Perkins Oil Well Cementing
held not infringed (D. C. Ohio) 2 Co., 2 F.(20) 247.
F.(20) 94. 310(10) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Reorganized
1,284,523. Mechanism for controlling automoporation assuming debts of old company may
bile throttle valves, claims 1 and be brought into infringement suit by supple
2, held valid and infringed (D. C. mental bill.-Safety Car Heating & Lighting
Ohio) 2 F.(2d) 305. Co. v. U. S. Light & Heating Co., 2 F.(20) 1,324,391. Paving guard, claim 4, held valid 384.
and infringed (C. C. A. Ohio) 2 m312(1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.H.) Plaintiff, alleging
F.(20) 198. infringement, has burden of proof.--- American 1,333,363. Compound for penetrating interior Sulphite Pulp Co. v. Burgess Sulphite Co., 2
corrosion, held not anticipated (C. F.(20) 6.
C. A. N. J.) 2 F.(20) 245. Patentee, unduly delaying suit, is not entitled 1,353,197. Abrasive compound, held valid (C. to have doubts resolved in his favor.-Id.
C. A. Colo.) 2 F.(20) 828. 313 (U.S.D.C.Del.) Plaintiff may dismiss 1,363,200. Automatic printing press
feeder, bill where defendant not prejudiced except by
claims 17-22, held valid, and enprospect of future litigation.--Allington v.
titled to priority over patent No. Shevlin-Hixon Co., 2 F.(2d) 747.
1,074,720, claims 1, 2, 10, 21 and Intervener resisting dismissal of bill because
22 (D. C. Pa.) 2 F.(2d) 744. of prospective future litigation not entitled 1,373,664. Device for separation of gas from to prevail.-Id.
oil, held not infringed (D. C. Cal.) Ci 318(1) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Defendant held lia
2 F.(20) 729. ble for profits from infringement.--Merrell- 1,439,338. Golf practicing and exercising deSoule Co. v. Powdered Milk Co. of America,
vice, beld valid (C. C. A. Ohio) 2 F.(20) 107.
2 F.(20) 655. em324(5) (U.S.C.C.A.N.H.) Finding on non- 1,439,339. Golf practicing and exercising deinfringement held entitled to unusual weight.
vice, held invalid (C. C. A. Ohio) American Sulphite Pulp Co. v. Burgess Sul
2 F.(2d) 655. phite Co., 2 F.(20) 6.
1,500,026. Process for treating silk stockings, Om324(6) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Motion to
held substantially the same as deopen for newly discovered evidence largely
scribed in former application for within trial court's discretion.-National Fire
patent (D. C. Pa.) 2 F.(20) 976. works Distributing Co. v. Edwards Mfg. Co., 2 F.(20) 815.
13,929. Apparatus for feeding glass into XIII. DECISIONS ON THE VALIDITY, CON
moulds, held not infringed (D. C. STRUCTION, AND INFRINGEMENT
Pa.) 2 F.(20) 109.
15,220. Device for separation of gas from oil, 328.
claims 17, 18, and 19, held not inUNITED STATES.
fringed (D. C. Cal.) 2 F.(20) 729.
15,401. Improved method of making roads, DESIGN
claims 1, 2, and 3, held invalid (D. 42,398. Towel cabinet, held valid and in
C. Del.) 2 F.(20) 83. fringed (D. C. Minn.) 2 F.(20) 299.
ance on property covered by trust deed securing 445,235. Acid-resisting lining of pulp-digesting notes held improperly applied by bank on in
boiler, held not infringed (C. C. A. debtedness other than notes.--Oliver v. Garlick, N. H.) 2 F.(20) 6.
2 F.(20) 132. 735,414. Double-deck bascule bridge, held not anticipated, and invalid (D. C. Ill.)
PERJURY. 2 F.(2d) 601.
II. PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT. 805,068. Method of feeding glass into moulds,
27 (U.S.C.C.A.Mich.) Subordation of perheld not infringed (D. C. 'Pa.) 2 F. (2d) 109.
jury indictment, omitting, word "willfully" in 919,351. Automatic feed mechanism for plan
characterizing perjury, heid sufficient.--Link
v. U. S., 2 F.(2) 709. er, held infringed (C. C. A. Mich.)
G-33(5) 2 F.(20) 837.
(U.S.C.C.A.Mich.) Affidavit held 926,308. Toy pistol, claim 6, held valid, and not
sufficient proof of oath, in absence of objecanticipated (C. C. A. Ohio) 2 F.(20)
tion.-Link v. U. S., 2 F.(20) 709.
Owll (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Temporary disability of 1,139,685. Mechanism for controlling automo- pilot held not to authorize deduction from
bile throttle valves, claims 2 and wages under time contract.-Lent Traffic Co. 3, held valid and infringed (D. C. v. Gould, 2 F.(20) 554.
Ohio) 2 F.(2d) 305.
See Equity, Omw148.
ings, see also the various specific topics. 1,153,482. Driving connections between felly For review of rulings relating to pleadings, see
and rim of automobile wheel, held Appeal and Error.
1. FORM AND ALLEGATIONS IN GENERAL. 1,157,046. Towel cabinet, held valid and in- 8(2) (U.S.D.C.Wash.) In civil action for
fringed (D. C. Minn.) 2 F.(20) 299. conspiracy facts must be pleaded.-Puget Sound 1,165,253. Casing head for oil wells, held valid Power & Light Co. v. Asia, 2 F.(20) 491.
and infringed (C. C. A. Kan.) 2 w34(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Inference to be F.(20) 530.
drawn from general allegations.-Kaemmerling
ble in prosecution for using mails to defraud.
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
2 F.(20) 839.
Indictment for using mails in execution of
scheme to obtain money by means of false and
fraudulent representations held good.-Id.
Om 48(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Indictment for
using mails to defraud construed.-McLendon
ww49 (U.S.C.C.A.Idaho) Evidence held to
sustain conviction for mailing unmailable mat-
ter.-Dampier v. U. S., 2 F.(20) 329.
Admission of testimony as to mailing pro-
cient to warrant conviction of officers of town-
site company selling lots by fraudulent rep-
In prosecution for using mails to defraud,
tations in other enterprises held admissible.
-Moore v. U. S., 2 F.(20) 839.
Evidence that permits to sell stock of cor-
poration in certain states had been denied held
Cum 49 (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Evidence held ad-
missible in prosecution for using the mails to
defraud.-McLendon v. U. S., 2 F.(20) 660.
Evidence held not to support charge as to
use of mails to defraud.-Id.
mw49 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Evidence of bankruptcy
held admissible in prosecution for using mails
to defraud.-U. S. y. Yusem, 2 F.(20) 163.
For practice in particular actions and proceed-
ings, see the various specific topics.
See Adverse Possession; Limitation of Actions.
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.
I. THE RELATION.
(A) Creation and Existence.
ww3(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Receipts for mon-
ey to be loaned held to make maker of receipt
agent of lenders.-In re Tilton, 2 F.(20) 799.
Cr23(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ga.) Evidence held to
authorize finding cotton broker was acting as
agent for another.-Fenner & Beane v. Holt,
2 F.(20) 253.
II. MUTUAL RIGHTS, DUTIES, AND LIA-
(A) Etecntion of Agency.
29 (U.S.D.C.Kan.) Charge of unregistered Ow66 (U.S.D.C.Md.) Letter of fire underwrit-
principals, held not to entitle agent to con-
sider fire insurance business as his individual
property.-Curtin v. Gildea, 2 F.(20) 865.
Agent leading principals to believe he was
accounting for profits not entitled to resist ac-
35 (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) That customers are counting held entitled to recover interest.-
laches held not to apply, where delay caused by
2 F.(20) 865.
of commissions permitted for many years vio-
conduct fire insurance business as his individ.
(A) Duty to Operate.
222(5) (U.S.C.C.A.S.D.) Evidence held not
to sustain charge of willful and wanton negli-
cago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 2 F.(20) 227.
(F) Accidents at Crossings.
Om327(1) (App.D.C.) Pedestrian or vehicle
driver must use senses of sight and hearing be-
fore crossing tracks.–Baltimore & O. R. Co.
v. Fidelity Storage Co., 2 F.(20) 310.
327(2) (App.D.C.) Truck driver, approach-
Co. v. Fidelity Storage Co., 2 F.(20) 310.
em338 (App.D.C.) Last clear chance doctrine
Fidelity Storage Co., 2 F.(20) 310.
Omw350(13) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Contributory
negligence of occupant of automobile jury
& Power Co., 2 F.(2d) 701.
m350(13) (U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) Gross or willful
negligence of deceased at crossing held ques-
tions for jury.—Byrd v. Atlantic Coast Line
R. Co., 2 F.(20) 672.
351 (8) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Refusal to
charge railroad was required to use greater
care where view was obstructed, held prejudi.
cial error.-Napier v. Northwestern Ohio Ry.
& Power Co., 2 F.(20) 701.
Use for transportation of particular money I. NATURE AND GROUNDS OF RECEIVER-
(B) Grounds of Appointment of Receiver.
m 1 2 (U.S.C.C.A.Miss.) County chancery
court of Mississippi may, without judgment at
law or nulla bona return, subject nonresident's
property to_demands of creditors.-Neely v.
McGehee, 2 F.(20) 853.
II. APPOINTMENT, QUALIFICATION, AND
m59 (U.S.C.C.A.Miss.) Action of state court
having jurisdiction in having nonresident's
property seized not subject to collateral at-
tack, except for fraud.-Neely v. McGehee, 2
IV. MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSITION OF
(A) Administration in General.
claims by shippers or consignees are "operating
Forfeiture of railroad right of way cannot
Om 133 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Construction of order
of sale; "unmatured obligations"; "damages.'
Safety Car Heating & Lighting Co. v. Ü. S.
V. ALLOWANCE AND PAYMENT OF
Om 163 (U.S.C.C.A.Mich.) Receivers held not
entitled arbitrarily to refuse payment of ship-
pers' claims.-Loveland & Hinyan Co. v. Pere
RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS.
ment to prove accused's knowledge or belief
may be inferred from surrounding circum-