to action to annul a reconveyance.-Pacific Improvement Co. v. Duson, 2 F. (2d) 261. Dismissal of bill to annul special acts of reconveyance held warranted as to land in certain parish.-Id. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. See Counties. IX. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. (E) Assessments for Benefits, and Special Taxes. 412 (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Cost of public improvements of general character must be assessed against all property in municipality.-Fidelity Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Kansas City v. Swope, 2 F.(2d) 676. 428 (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Assessment of abutting property for improvement on another street not justified.-Fidelity Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Kansas City v. Swope, 2 F. (2d) 676. 429 (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Cost of improvements may be assessed against abutting property.— Fidelity Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Kansas City v. Swope, 2 F. (2d) 676. im 450(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Semipublic provements need not be assessed on abutting property only, nor on property in whole city.Fidelity Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Kansas City v. Swope, 2 F. (2d) 676. Benefit district and assessments held arbitrary and unreasonable.-Id. хий. FISCAL MANAGEMENT, PUBLIC DEBT, SECURITIES, AND TAXATION. (A) Power to Incur Indebtedness and Ex penditures. to inflict resulting injury.-Westre v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 2 F. (2d) 227. II. PROXIMATE CAUSE OF INJURY. 56(1) (U.S.D.C.Wash.) "Proximate cause" of injury.-Lorang v. Alaska S. S. Co., 2 F. (2d) 300. IV. ACTIONS. (A) Right of Action, Parties, Preliminary Proceedings, and Pleading. ~111(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) General allegations in pleading may be sufficient.-Kaemmerling v. Athletic Mining & Smelting Co., 2 F. (2d) 574. 112 (U.S.C.C.A.S.D.) Allegation of "gross negligence" held without legal significance. Westre v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 2 F. (2d) 227. (B) Evidence. v. Washington 121(!) (App.D.C.) Burden of proof on complaining party.-Bennett Terminal Co., 2 F.(2d) 913. 134(1) (App.D.C.) Proof by competent_evidence essential.-Bennett v. Washington Terminal Co., 2 F. (2d) 913. 134(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Finding of negligence held supported by evidence.-Hobbs, Wall & Co. v. Petterson, 2 F. (2d) 594. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS. See Bills and Notes. NONSUIT. See Dismissal and Nonsuit. 878 (U.S.C.C.A.Ga.) City held not liable See Bills and Notes. for debt contracted without compliance with Constitution.-A. L. Greenburg Iron Co. v. City of Abbeville, 2 F. (2d) 559. (C) Bonds and Other Securities, and sinking Funds. 933 (U.S.D.C.Ark.) Officers cannot bind municipality by invalid evidences of indebtedness.-Filbert v. Arkansas & Missouri Highway Dist., 2 F.(2d) 114. NOTES. OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE. (U.S.D.C.Fla.) Indictment for assault on officer held to sufficiently charge knowledge of official character.-U. S. v. Gay, 2 F.(2d) 635. Indictment for interfering with prohibition officer making search held not defective for failure to aver circumstances showing authority to make search.-Id. For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER VII. DISSOLUTION, SETTLEMENT, AND ACCOUNTING. (C) Distribution and Settlement Between Partners and Their Representatives. 311(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Porto Rico) Dissolution agreement construed and held to entitle partner selling stock to contemporaneous payment of price.-Gandia v. Porto Rico Fertilizer Co., 2 F. (2d) 641. Dissolution agreement drawn by counsel for one partner may be construed most favorably to other partner.-Id. PATENTS. II. PATENTABILITY. (A) Invention. 19 (U.S.D.C.Del.) Mere variation in proportions of elements of a composition is not invention.-Bituminous Products Co. v. Headley Good Roads Co., 2 F.(2d) 83. New product must differ from old, otherwise than in degree.-Id. 26(2) (U.S.D.C.III.) New combination of old elements, to be patentable, must produce new result as effect of the combination.Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge Co. v. City of Chicago, 2 F. (2d) 601. 30(1) (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Invention must be completed by reduction to practice.-Lowe v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 2 F. (2d) 157. 36 (U.S.D.C.Del.) Acquiescence as evidence of validity-Bituminous Products Co. v. Headley Good Roads Co., 2 F. (2d) 83. (B) Novelty. 42 (U.S.C.C.A.Colo.) Combination of old elements to affect old result in better manner may amount to invention.-Zip Mfg. Co. v. Pusch, 2 F. (2d) 828. 42 (U.S.C.C.A.Kan.) Patent may possess novelty and validity, though consisting only of combination of prior arts.-Acme Foundry & Machine Co. v. Oil Well Improvements Co., 2 F. (2d) 530. 45 (U.S.C.C.A.Kan.) Fact of issuance of patent and popular acclaim raise presumption of novelty.-Acme Foundry & Machine Co. v. Oil Well Improvements Co., 2 F. (2d) 530. 62 (U.S.D.C.Minn.) Oral proof of prior use must be beyond reasonable doubt.-Rousso v. Boyle, 2 F. (2d) 299. 66 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Patent issued to same inventor on same date not considered as part of prior art.-Sandy MacGregor Co. V. Vaco Grip Co., 2 F. (2d) 655. 73 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Validity with reference to prior art depends upon date of invention rather than patent.-Sandy MacGregor Co. v. Vaco Grip Co., 2 F. (2d) 655. III. PERSONS ENTITLED TO PATENTS. 90(2) (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Inventor must use due diligence in reduction to practice.-Lowe v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 2 F. (2d) 157. 91(1) (App.D.C.) Junior party, in interference proceeding, had burden of proving that he, and not senior party, had made invention. -Pinkerton v. Gibson, 2 F. (2d) 937. 91 (3) (App.D.C.) Evidence held not to prove disclosure of invention by junior to senior party.-Pinkerton v. Gibson, 2 F. (2d) 937. 92 (U.S.D.C.III.) Joint invention.-Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge Co. v. City of Chicago, 2 F.(2d) 601. 2 F. (2d)-67 IV. APPLICATIONS AND PROCEEDINGS THEREON. 101 (App.D.C.) One cannot read limitations into claims broadly stated.-In re Levy, 2 F. (2d) 939. Patent Office should give claims broadest interpretation of which they are reasonably capable.-Id. 104 (App.D.C.) Doubt as to whether claims should be allow resolved in applicant's favor.In re Levy, 2 F. (2d) 939. 112(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Colo.) Patent presumes novelty, and burden on infringer to prove invalidity with reasonable clearness.-Zip Mfg. Co. v. Pusch, 2 F. (2d) 828. 112(3) (Ú.S.C.C.A.Kan.) Fact of issuance of patent and popular acclaim raise presumption of validity.-Acme Foundry & Machine Co. v. Oil Well Improvements Co., 2 F. (2d) 530. 114 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Suit to adjudicate rights of owners of interfering patents in nature of suit to set aside judgment.-Miehle Printing Press & Mfg. Co. v. Miller Saw-Trimmer Co., 2 F. (2d) 744. Columbia in interference proceeding presumed Decree of Court of Appeals of District of correct not set aside except on clearest proof. -Id. Evidence held insufficient to overcome presumption in favor of correctness of previous decree of Court of Appeals of District of Columbia in interference proceeding.-Id. V. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY OF LETTERS PATENT. 118 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Patentee need not disclose accessories or auxiliary devices used in connection with invention. Miehle Printing Press & Mfg. Co. v. Miller Saw-Trimmer Co., 2 F.(2d) 744. 129 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Patentable "utility," within rule estopping infringer defined.-Sandy MacGregor Co. v. Vaco Grip Co., 2 F. (2d) 655. IX. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF LETTERS PATENT. (A) In General. 159 (U.S.C.C.A.Colo.) Evidence of anticipation held admissible as to construction, but not competent as to validity.-Zip Mfg. Co. v. Pusch, 2 F. (2d) 828. 162 (U.S.C.C.A.Colo.) Statements in patent as to condition of prior art properly considered on question of validity.-Zip Mfg. Co. v. Pusch, 2 F. (2d) 828. (B) Limitation of Claims. 168 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Patent Office reason for allowance of claim not within rule of estoppel-W. S. Godwin Co. v. International Steel Tie Co., 2 F. (2d) 198. X. TITLE, CONVEYANCES, AND CONTRACTS. (A) Rights of Patentees in General. 183 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Preliminary injunction issued to restrain assignment of right to practice invention, but not to prevent defendant itself from practicing invention.-Carpenter Chemical Co. v. Lansdale Silk Hosiery Co., 2 F. (2d) 976. XII. INFRINGEMENT. (A) What Constitutes Infringement. 261 (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Patentee held estopped to claim infringement.-Lowe v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 2 F. (2d) 157. (C) Suits in Equity. 281 (U.S.D.C.III.) Authority given courts of equity to increase damages in infringement suits within power of Congress.-Taylor v. Ford Motor Co., 2 F. (2d) 473. 308 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Refusal to dissolve 1,220,444. Improvement in basic open hearth preliminary injunction held not abuse of discretion.-Owen v. Perkins Oil Well Cementing Co., 2 F. (2d) 247. cor furnaces, claims 1, 2, 5, and 8, held not infringed (D. C. Ohio) 2 F.(2d) 94. 1,284,523. Mechanism for controlling automobile throttle valves, claims 1 and 2, held valid and infringed (D. C. Ohio) 2 F.(2d) 305. 310(10) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Reorganized poration assuming debts of old company may be brought into infringement suit by supplemental bill.-Safety Car Heating & Lighting Co. v. U. S. Light & Heating Co., 2 F. (2d) 1,324,391. Paving guard, claim 4, held valid 384. and infringed (C. C. A. Ohio) 2 F.(2d) 198. 312(1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.H.) Plaintiff, alleging infringement, has burden of proof.-American 1,333,363. Compound for penetrating interior Sulphite Pulp Co. v. Burgess Sulphite Co., 2 F. (2d) 6. corrosion, held not anticipated (C. C. A. N. J.) 2 F.(2d) 245. Abrasive compound, held valid (C. C. A. Colo.) 2 F.(2d) 828. Automatic printing press feeder, claims 17-22, held valid, and entitled to priority over patent No. 1,074,720, claims 1, 2, 10, 21 and 22 (D. C. Pa.) 2 F.(2d) 744. Intervener resisting dismissal of bill because 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.) 2 F.(2d) 729. 318(1) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Defendant held liable for profits from infringement.-Merrell- 1,439,338. Golf practicing and exercising deSoule Co. v. Powdered Milk Co. of America, 2 F. (2d) 107. Lowe, ORIGINAL. Improvement in gas-making apparatus, held invalid (D. C. Cal.) 2 F.(24) 157. 445,235. Acid-resisting lining of pulp-digesting boiler, held not infringed (C. C. A. N. H.) 2 F.(2d) 6. 735,414. Double-deck bascule bridge, held not anticipated, and invalid (D. C. Ill.) 2 F.(2d) 601. 805,068. Method of feeding glass into moulds, held not infringed (D. C. Pa.) 2 F. (2d) 109. 919,351. Automatic feed mechanism for planer, held infringed (C. C. A. Mich.) 2 F.(2d) 837. 926,308. Toy pistol, claim 6, held valid, and not anticipated (C. C. A. Ohio) 2 F.(2d) 815. 981,111. Concrete mixer, held void (C. C. A. N. J.) 2 F.(2d) 565. 1,139,685. Mechanism for controlling automobile throttle valves, claims 2 and 3, held valid and infringed (D. C. Ohio) 2 F.(2d) 305. 1,153,481. Driving connections between felly and rim of automobile wheel, claims 2, 5, and 7, held anticipated and lacking in invention (C. C. A. Ohio) 2 F.(2d) 713. 1,500,026. vice, held valid (C. C. A. Ohio) 1,439,339. Golf practicing and exercising de- For pleadings in particular actions or proceed- I. FORM AND ALLEGATIONS IN GENERAL. 1,153,482. Driving connections between felly and rim of automobile wheel, held anticipated and lacking in invention (C. C. A. Ohio) 2 F.(2d) 713. 1,157,046. Towel cabinet, held valid and in-8(2) (U.S.D.C.Wash.) In civil action for fringed (D. Č. Minn.) 2 F.(2d) 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. (2d) 491. and infringed (C. C. A. Kan.) 234(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Inference to be F.(2d) 530. drawn from general allegations.-Kaemmerling For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER v. Athletic Mining & Smelting Co., 2 F.(2d) III. PLEA OR ANSWER, CROSS-COM- DEFENSE. 4 (U.S.C.C.A.Minn.) Intent not element of 9 (U.S.C.C.A.Ala.) Evidence witness sent 9 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Indictment for purchas- Indictment held to charge violation of Nar- Evidence held to warrant conviction under 9 (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Instructions in prose- 9 (U.S.D.C.Kan.) Charge of unregistered POST OFFICE. III. OFFENSES AGAINST POSTAL LAWS. 35 (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) That customers are Letter mailed must have some relation to 48 (4) (U.S.C.C.A.Ala.) Each count of in- 48(4) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Indictment for us- the illegal matter in the mails.-Moore v. U. S., Indictment for using mails in execution of for 48(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Indictment 49 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Evidence held to sus- held to 49 (U.S.C.C.A.Idaho) Evidence Admission of testimony as to mailing pro- 49 (U.S.C.C.A.Idaho) Evidence held suffi- In prosecution for using mails to defraud, 49 (U.S.C.C.A.II.) Evidence held admissi- Evidence that permits to sell stock of cor- 49 (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Evidence held ad- 49 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Evidence of bankruptcy PRACTICE. For practice in particular actions and proceed- PRESCRIPTION. See Adverse Possession; Limitation of Actions. I. THE RELATION. (A) Creation and Existence. 3 (3) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Receipts for mon- 23(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ga.) Evidence held to II. MUTUAL RIGHTS, DUTIES, AND LIA- BILITIES. (A) Execution of Agency. 66 (U.S.D.C.Md.) Letter of fire underwrit- Agent leading principals to believe he was 67 (U.S.D.C.Md.) Principal compelling ac- and 78 (24) (U.S.D.C.Md.) Limitations 78(5) (U.S.D.C.Md.) Correspondence and 78(6) (U.S.D.C.Md.) Evidence held to re- conduct fire insurance business as his individ- PRINCIPAL AND SURETY. IV. REMEDIES OF CREDITORS. PRIVILEGE. See Constitutional Law, 205. PROHIBITION. See Intoxicating Liquors. PROMISSORY NOTES. See Bills and Notes. PROSTITUTION. (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Under White Slave Traffic Act, prostitution within state unneces- Use for transportation of particular money 4 (U.S.C.C.A.Or.) Evidence held to sustain 5 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Instructions held not PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. See Municipal Corporations, 412-450. PUBLIC LANDS. II. SURVEY AND DISPOSAL OF LANDS OF (H) Grants in Aid of Railroads. 92 (U.S.D.C.Utah) Attorney General held Public interest held not to require forfeiture Forfeiture of railroad right of way cannot PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATIONS. RAILROADS. V. RIGHT OF WAY AND OTHER INTER- 62 (U.S.D.C.Mo.) Railroad's use of prop- 73(4) (U.S.C.C.A.S.D.) Provision of con- 82(2) (U.S.D.C.Mo.) Evidence held insuffi- X. OPERATION. (A) Duty to Operate. 222(5) (U.S.C.C.A.S.D.) Evidence held not (F) Accidents at Crossings. 327(2) (App.D.C.) Truck driver, approach- 338 (App.D.C.) Last clear chance doctrine 350(13) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Contributory 350(13) (U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) Gross or willful Refusal to 351 (8) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) (D) Sale and Conveyance or Redelivery 133 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Construction of order V. ALLOWANCE AND PAYMENT OF 163 (U.S.C.C.A.Mich.) Receivers held not Receivers held to have burden of showing RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS. 8(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Burden on govern- 8(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Guilty knowledge |