Abbildungen der Seite


3. A claim for wages being a lien on the boat, under all circumstances,

is an exception to the general rule. Where persons in good faith
bave given credit to a steamboat for necessary supplies and repairs,
as a foreign boat, such persons are not affected by the fraudulent
character of sales or transfers by which the boat was placed in the

position of a foreign boat. Ib.
4. If such persons were apprised of the real nature and character of the

transfers, or are fairly chargeable with such knowledge, they must
be viewed as participants of the fraud, and can have no claim to

any benefit resulting from it. Ib.
No inference of negligence can be deduced from the fact that a steam-

boat lying at a wharf has a loaded barge alongside of her. Mills v.

Steamboat Holmes, 352.

[ocr errors]

1. Section 6 of the neutrality act of April 20, 1818, punishing the offenses

of beginning or setting on foot, or providing or preparing the means
for a military expedition or enterprise for the invasion of a country
with which the United States is at peace, is not violated without
the commission of an overt or definite act. United States v. Lums-

den, 5.
2. Mere words written or spoken, though indicative of the strongest de-

sire and most determined purpose to do the forbidden acts, will not:

constitute an offense defined and punished by said section 6. 16.
3. If the means provided were procured to be used on the occurrence

of a future contingent event, no liability is incurred under the stat-

ute. Ib.
4. If the intention is that the means provided shall only be used at a

time and under circumstances when they could be used without a

violation of law, no criminality attaches to the act. Ib.
6. To provide the means for such unlawful expedition or enterprise,

implies that such means must be actually furnished and brought

together for a criminal purpose. Ib.
The court will not grant a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered

evidence, less satisfied that if a new trial was had a different result

would follow. White v. Arleth, 319.

Office and Officer-Parties.

1. The legislation of Congress prohibits any extra' compensation to an

officer for services performed, properly pertaining by law to his

office. United States v. Smith, 68.
2. The act organizing the Territory of Minnesota, made the secretary the

disbursing officer of the territorial government, and he can not claim

a commission on such disbursements. Ib.

1. If, in his declaration, a plaintiff makes profert of the bond declared

on, and also a collateral agreement necessary to establish his right to
recover on the bond, the defendant may crave oyer of the bond and

the collateral agreement. Hammer v. Klein, 590.
2. As the legal effect of the profert of the papers, they are presumed to

be in court, and the opposing party has a right to know their con-

tents, and oyer will be granted on his application. Ib.
3. The right to oyer in a proper case is a part of the common law sys-

tem of special pleading, which, in a modified form, has obtained in

this court from its first organization. Ib.
1. The proclamation of the President of the United States, of December

8, 1863, extending amnesty to persons who directly or indirectly par.
ticipated in rebellion, included within its terms a citizen of the
State of Ohio, indicted for treason against the United States. United

States v. Hughes, 574.
2. A citizen who has complied with the requirements of such proclama-

tion, is not excluded from its protection by a subsequent explanatory
proclamation of the President, issued after such compliance, debar-

ring persons in civil custody from its operation. Io.
A partner can not, by an agreement to sell a part of his interest, compel

his other partner to accept the vendee as a member of the firm.

McNamara v. Gaylord, 302.
1. Under section 9 of the act of Congress of February 10, 1855, “to di-

vide the State of Ohio into two judicial districts,” which provides
"that suits, not of a local nature, shall be brought in the court of the
district where the defendant resides; but if there be more than one
defendant, and they reside in different districts, the plaintiff may sue
in either:" Held, that a defendant is one who is a real, and not

Patents and Patent Law.


PARTIES- Continued.

merely a nominal party to the suit, and who has either directly or
indirectly an interest adverse to the claim of the plaintiff, and may
be in some way affected by the judgment or decree to be entered.

Sackett's Harbor Bank v. Barry, 154.
2. Where it appears from the evidence that the names of the seamen

are used in the libel as claimants for wages, and that they had as-
signed their claims, and that the assignee was the sole party in in-
terest, the libel in the names of the seamen will be dismissed. La

gan v. Steamboat Æolian, 267.
3. Where a collision is the joint act of two steamboats, there can be no

objection to the joinder of both as defendants in an action. Atkin-

son v. Steamboat Hamilton, 536.
4. If each boat is charged with a distinct and separate act of collision,

without any allegation of privity between them, or concert or unity

of purpose, they can not be joined in the same libel. Ib.

1. If the jury are satisfied that the patentee, or the plaintiff as his as-

signee, has surrendered or abandoned the invention to the public,

there can be no recovery for an infringement. Wayne v. Holmes, 27.
2. An abandonment or dedication to the public of an invention may be

made as well after patent granted as before; but when the patent
has actually been granted, it would undoubtedly require a strong
case to prove abandonment. Bell v. Daniels, 212.

3. B. made application for a patent in January, 1838. Some objections

were made by the office, and, finally, an amended specification was
filled in March, 1840, upon which the patent issued. There was no
evidence that the patentee withdrew or abandoned his application
of 1838: Held, that the two years during which the invention might
be used before the application without abandonment, must be dated
back from January, 1838. Bell v. Daniels, 212.

4. Although inventors only are named in section 17 of the act of 1836,

no doubt can be entertained that it extends to and includes the as-

signees of such inventors. Jenkins v. Greenwald, 126.
B. A grant to A. of the exclusive right to make, vend, and use a certain

machine within the county of Hamilton, Ohio, conveys the right to
make and vend such machines within said county for licensees who
intend to use the same without said county; and the manufacture
by others of machines within said county for use without, is an in-
fringement of the rights conveyed to A. Ib.

Patents and Patent Law.

6. A paper purporting to be an assignment of an expired patent is void

as an assignment, though it may be enforced as a power of attorney.
Bell v. McCullough, 194.

7. Whether a defendant, who has been enjoined from infringing a pat-

ent by manufacturing or selling the infringing article, continues to
sell in his own right, or as tho agent of another, he is equally guilty
of a contempt, and is liable to attachment. Potter v. Muller, 601.

8. The effect of a caveat is to protect the claim of an inventor from all

interfering applications made within one year after its filling, by
requiring the office to notify him of such applications, that he may
resist the interference if he chooses. But if, during the time which
elapses between the filing of his caveat and his application, he allows
his invention to go into public use, his caveat will not protect him.
Bell v. Daniels, 212.

9. There are two classes or kinds of combination recognized by our patent

laws which are properly the subject of a patent. Lee v. Blandy, 361.
10. The first is one in which all the parts were before known, and where

the sole merit of the invention consists in such an arrangement of

them as to produce a new and useful result. Ib.
11. The second is where some of the parts or elements of the combina-

tion are new, and their invention is claimed, but where they are used

in combination with parts or elements that were known before. Ib.
12. The law is well settled that a patent for a combination of old things,

applied to produce a new and useful result, is not violated unless all
the parts or elements of the combination are used. Dodge v. Card,

13. A patentee is not controlled by the title of his patent, but the patent,

the specification, and the drawings are all to be examined, and are
all to have a fair and liberal construction in determining the nature


and extent of the invention. Bell v. Daniels, 212.
14. In the construction of a patent, the patentee is not to be confined to

the summing-up or “claim,” but the specification, the whole specifi-
cation, and the drawings may be referred to, to ascertain the extent
of the claim of the invention, or the proper meaning of expressions

used in the "claim.” Morris v. Barrett, 254.
15. M. claimed “the clamps, 6 6, to prevent end-expansion, and the levers

7 7, working on fixed fulcrums,” to prevent the wood from twisting.
Held, that this was not a claim for the combination of clamps and


Patents and Patent Law.

man v.


levers, but for two distinct improvements in the art of bending

wood. 16.
16. There can be no question but that there may be a claim for two in-

ventions in the same patent, if they both relate to the same machine;
and an action can be sustained for the infringement of either, when

they are claimed as separate and distinct. Lee v. Blandy, 361.
17. The plaintiff's patent covers all the modes and processes by which
the principle of his invention is made operative in practice. Tilgh-
Werk, 511.

18. Under section 14 of the patent act of 1836, which provides substan-

tially that where a verdict is rendered for an infringement of a
patent right, it shall be competent for the court to render judgment
for any sum not exceeding three times the amount of the verdict,
as the circumstances of the case may require, with costs, the right of
the plaintiff for costs follows from a verdict in his favor for any
amount of damage, whether nominal or compensatory, and without
any reference to the action of the court in adjudging an increase of

damages. Merchant f Humphrey v. Lewis, 172.
19. The discretion given to the court by said section was clearly to meet

the case of a willful and aggravated violation of a patent right, in

which the jury had failed to do full justice to the plaintiffs. Ib.
20. Models of the invention described in the plaintiff's patent, and pro-

cured by the defendant in good faith, may be included in the taxe-

tion of costs, but not other models. Woodruf v. Barney, 528.
21. Copies of patents, either that of the plaintiff or others, procured by
the defendant, can not be taxed as costs to the plaintiff. Ib.

22. The object of the provision, which permits the court to treble the

verdict found by the jury, is to remunerate patentees who are com-
pelled to sustain their patents against wanton and persevering in-
fringers, and was not intended to include mere collection suits

brought upon an expired patent. Bell v. McCullough, 194.
23. There is no unbending of unyielding rule of damages, but the rule

generally recognized as the true one, is to give, as damages, the
amount of profits saved to the defendants by the unlawful use of the

plaintiff's invention. Bell v. Daniels; 212.
24. The amount which the plaintiff should recover is to be measured by

the profit which the defendant has derived from the adoption and

use of the plaintiff's invention. Tilghman v. Werk, 511.
26. If the jury find the patented improvement is new and original, and

that the defendant has infringed, their verdict wiļl be the actual

« ZurückWeiter »