Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

General Electric Co. v. Bullock Electric Mfg. and infringed.-West Disinfecting Co. v. Frank
Co. (C. C.) 549.

(C. C.) 388.
The Miller patent No. 524,178 for a packing $ 8. Patents enumerated.
held void for anticipation.-Daniels v. Restein
(C. C. A.) 74.

CANADIAN.
The Golding patent No. 527,242 for a pro-

41,901. Talking machine, cited......537, 539
cess for making expanded sheet metal work

ENGLISH.
held void for lack of patentable invention.-

9,146. Sealed jars, cited...

387
Bradford v. Expanded Metal Co. (C. C. A.) 984.

FRENCH.
The Berliner patent No. 534,543 for improve- 207,090. Talking machine, cited. ... 535
ments in talking machines, claims 5 and 35,
held valid and infringed on motion for prelimi-

GERMAN.
nary injunction.-Victor Talking Mach. Co. v. 7,393. Computing machine, cited. ...... 982
Talk-o-Phone Co. (C. C.) 534; Same v. Leeds & 45,048. Talking machine, cited..

535
Catlin Co., Id.

53,622. Talking machine, cited.

535
The Glover patent, No. 559,522, for a sewage

66,340. Computing machine, cited. 982
apparatus, held not infringed.-American Sew-

UNITED STATES.
age Disposal Co. v. City of Pawtucket (C. C.

DESIGN.
A.) 753

33,633. Casing for disinfectant, held valid
The French patent, No. 561,386, for a device

and infringed....

388
for heating the looper of a wax thread shoe
sewing machine, construed, and held not in- 208.385. Steam packing, cited.

ORIGINAL.

75
fringed. -- United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Green-251,596. Electric lamp socket, cited. 512
man (C. C. A.) 759.

257,266. Incandescent lamp socket, cited.. 542
The Reist patent No. 673,107 for securing 258,744. Sewage apparatus, cited.... 755
field magnet poles is void for lack of patent- 267,430. Lubricating apparatus, cited. 254
able invention.--General Electric Co. v. Bullock 300,508. Glove fastener, cited..

136
Electric Mfg. Co. (C. C.) 551.

311,100. Incandescent lamp socket, cited. 542
The Pringle patent No. 573,532 for a sepa-

348,270. Wooden pulley-covering, cited.... 553

535
rable button claims 3 and 4 are void for antici- 372,786. Talking machine, cited..
pation.—United States Fastener Co. v. Dutcher 381,230. Process of expanding sheet metal,

cited ...,

985
(C. C.) 136.

381,231. Process of expanding sheet metal,
The Knight & Potter patents Nos. 587,441

cited

985
and 587,442 for an apparatus and method for 381,749. Brush, cited..

757
regulating electrically driven mechanism held 383,702. Glove fastener, cited.

136
not anticipated valid and infringed.-General 388,119. Calculating-machine, cited. 982
Electric Co. v. Garrett Coal Co. (C. C. A.) 66. 389,817. Portable boat, claim 1, held not
The Shepherd patent, No. 601,405, for a

infringed

133
brush, construed, and 'held not 'infringed. - 401,780. Type-writing machine, cited..... 982
Shepherd v. Deitsch (C. C. A.) 756.

434,543. Talking machine, claims 5 and 35

held valid on motion for prelimi-
The Felt patent No. 628,176 for a computing

nary injunction...

534
machine, claims 1, 2 & 4, held void for anticipa- 439,544. Type-writing machine, cited.. 982
tion or abandonment.-Universal Adding Mach. 439,847. Type-writing machine, cited. 982
Co. v. Comptograph Co. (C. C. A.) 981.

441,232. Type-writing machine, cited..... 982
The Wright and Curry patent, No. 631,033, 441,233. Adding and recording machine,
for a mirror, construed, and held infringed.--

cited

932
Conroy v. Penn Electrical & Mfg. Co. (C. c. 457,007. Tooth brush, cited.,

757
A.) 749.

463,704. Electric motor, cited..

551
The Woods patent No. 645,026 for a lubricator 463,704. Electric motor, held void for lack
for the valves and cylinders of locomotive en- 465,255. Recording computing-machine, cit-

of patentable invention..

552
gines construed and held not anticipated, valid
and infringed.— Nathan Mfg. Co. v. Delaware, 465,451. Type-writing machine, cited..... 982

ed ..

..982, 983
L. & W. R. Co. (C. C.) 252.

471,872. Attachment for type-writing ma-
The Ellis patent No. 714,880 for a composi-

chines, cited...

982
tion for removing paint and varnish and the 433,033. Hermetically sealed jar, held limit-
process of making the same held not anticipated

ed and as limited not infringed.. 387
valid and infringed.-Chadeloid Chemical Co. 488,416. Paint remover, cited..

989
v. Frank S. De Ronde Co. (C. C.) 988.

489,682. Electric lamp socket, claims 5 and
The Morrison patent, No. 717,014, claim 1.

7 held valid and infringed; claim
for a method of making brushes, construed and

6 held void for lack of invention 539
held infringed. - Universal Brush Co. v. Sonn 500,793. Music-writing machine, cited...
(C. C.) 517.

501,753. Type-writing machine, cited...... 982

504,963. Calculating-machine, cited. .. 982
The Taussig design patent No. 33,633 for a 505,078. Recording device for calculators,
design for a casing for disinfectant held valid

etc., cited...

982
*Point annotated. See syllabus.

507,439. Portable boats, claim 2, held not

PAYMENT.
infringed ...

133
508,637. Armature core, held not anticipat Of duties, see "Customs Duties," $ 4.
ed, valid and infringed...

549
517,735. Numeral adding or subtracting at § 1. Recovery of payments.'
tachment for type-writing ma-

Where the amount to be paid for an assign-
chines, cited.

982 ment of leases on ore land was to be based on
524,178. Steam packing held void for an certain explorations and calculations, the fact
ticipation

74 that some of the assumptions on which the cal-
524,867. Type-writing machine, cited.. 982 culations were based turned out to be erroneous,
527,212. Process of expanding sheet metal, did not entitle plaintiff to recover a portion of

held void for lack of patentable the consideration paid as money paid under a
invention

...984, 985 mistake of fact. -Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co. v.
538,807. Type-writing and adding machine, East Itasca Min. Co. (C. C. A.) 232.
cited

932
543,111. Type-writing machine, cited..... 982
553,331. Adding and recording machine, cit-

PENALTIES.
ed

982
555,039. Combined adding and printing ma-

Infringement of copyright, see "Copyrights,” $ 2.
chine, cited...

982
557,844. Brush, cited..

757

PERSONAL INJURIES.
559,522. Sewage apparatus, held not in-
fringed

• 753 Release of claim for, see “Release,” § 1.
561,386. Shoe sewing machine, held not in-

To employé, see "Master and Servant," $ 1.
fringed

759

To passenger, see "Carriers," $ 3.
564,586. Talking machine, cited.

537
568,021. Printing and calculating machine,
cited
..982, 983

PETITION.
570,604. Method of making brushes, cited.. 519
573,107. Armature, held void for lack of

See “Admiralty," § 2; "Bankruptcy," § 1.
patentable invention...

551
573,532. Separable button, claims 3 and 4,
held void for anticipation.. 136

PLEADING.
578,303. Type-writing and adding machine,
cited

982 Applicability of instructions to pleadings, see
580,863. Calculating-machine, cited....

"Trial," § 3.

981, 982, 983
587,411. Electric controller, held infrin In actions by or against particular classes of
ged
...66, 70

persons.
587,442. Method for controlling electric See "Partnership," § 1.

power, held not anticipated ; and
infringed... ...66, 67, 68, 70

In particular actions or proceedings.
595,364. Printing attachment for calcula See "Admiralty,"$ 2; "Cancellation of Instru-
ting-machines, cited...

982 ments," § 1; "Equity," $ 3; “Work and La-
601,405. Brush, held limited and as limited

bor."
not infringed..

756 Indictment or criminal information or com-
628,176. Computing machine, claims 1, 2, plaint, see "Indictment and Information."

and 4, held void for anticipation
by No. 580, 863 or for abandon-

$ 1. Signature and verification.
ment

981 Where a mere glance at a ciemurrer to the
631,033. Mirror, held not limited, and in complaint was sufficient to show that it was
fringed ..

749 filed in the best of faith, a statement of counsel
644,550. Hub center, cited...

759 that it was not interposed for delay was not re-
645,026. Lubricator for locomotive engines, quired.-Ballantine v. Yung Wingo (C. C.) 621.

not anticipated, held infringed.. 252
651,276. IIub centers rights of plaintiff to

§ 2. Motions.

*Plaintiff's remedy, against a demurrer fail-
patent, determined

758
693,958. Duplicate printing mechanism for

ing to contain a certificate of counsel, held a

motion to strike from the files.-Ballantine v.
adding machines, cited...

982
714,880. Paint remover, held not anticipa-

Yung Wing (C. C.) 621.
ted, valid and infringed........ 988
717,014. Method of making brushes, claim

POLICY.
1, held infringed by No. 791,
510 ...

517 Of insurance, see "Insurance."
726,812. Process of treating coffee, held

void for lack of invention.. 745
736,346. Process of treating coffee, held

POST OFFICE.
void for lack of invention... 745
791,510. Method of making brushes, held $ 1. Offenses against postal laws.
to infringe No.717,014, claim

Facts held insufficient to establish the offense
1

..517, 524' of depositing a letter in the mails in furtherance
*Point annotated. See syllabus.

of a scheme to defraud, as charged in an indict In particular civil actions or proceedings.
ment.-Brown v. United States (C. C. A.) 219. See "Attachment"; "Contempt," 8 1; "Eject-
A person cannot be convicted of depositing a

ment.”
letter in the post office in execution of a scheme
to defraud in violation of Rev. St. $ 5480 [U: See “Abatement and Revival”; “Appearance”;

Particular proceedings in actions.
S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3696], unless the proof
substantially sustains the scheme alleged.-

"Costs"; "Evidence"; "Judgment; "Judi-
Brown v. United States (C. C. A.) 219.

cial Sales”; “Jury”;'“Pleading"; "Removal

of Causes"; "Stipulations"; "Trial."
*In order to make out the offense defined by Verdict, see “Trial," $ 4.
Rev. St. § 5480 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3696),
there must be not only a scheme to defraud, but l'articular remedies in or incident to actions.
it must contemplate the use of the post office See “Discovery"; "Garnishment”; “Injunc-
for that purpose.—Brooks v. United States (C. tion"; "Receivers."
C. A.) 223.

Procedure in criminal prosecutions.
An indictment for mailing a letter in further-See “Criminal Law"; "Extradition.”
ance of a scheme to defraud, in violation of Rev.
St. $ 5480 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3696], held Procedure in exercise of special or limited juris-
to sufficiently allege a scheme to defraud within

diction.
such section. Brooks v. United States (C. C. Admiralty, see "Admiralty"; "Collision," 8 2;
A.) 223.

“Maritime Liens," § 2; "Shipping,” Š 6.
Pretensions made by the accused may consti- Bankruptcy, see Bankruptcy," § 1.
tute a scheme to defraud, provided only it be In equity, see “Equity.'
designed and reasonably adapted to deceive.-

Procedure on review.
Brooks v. United States (C. C. A.) 223.

See “Appeal and Error."
*An indictment for mailing a letter in execu-
tion of a scheme to defraud, in violation of Rev.
St. $ 5480 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3696], held

PREFERENCES.
not required to allege the particulars of such
scheme with certainty as to time, place, and cir- Effect of proceedings in bankruptcy, see “Bank-
cumstances.--Brooks v. United States (C. C. A.)

ruptcy," $ 3.
223.

PREJUDICE.
Advertising matter sent out by defendant
through the mails, held evidence of the existence Ground for removal of cause, see "Removal of
of a scheme to defraud.—Brooks v. United

Causes," $ 3.
States (C. C. A.) 223.

Ground for reversal in civil actions, see "Ap-
In a prosecution for the mailing of certain peal and Error," § 5.
letters in furtherance of a scheme to defraud,
certain stock advertisements, and a copy of a PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION.
false affidavit and laudatory letter, held admis-
sible.—Brooks v. United States (C. C. A.) 223. On criminal charge, see "Criminal Law," § 2.

In a prosecution for mailing certain letters
in furtherance of a scheme to defraud, other PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.
letters than those counted on, sent out by de-
fendant's company to others, held admissible.— See “Injunction," $ 4.
Brooks v. United States (C. C. A.) 223.
In a prosecution for the mailing of certain

PREMIUMS.
letters in furtherance of a scheme to defraud,
evidence held sufficient to justify a finding that For insurance, see "Insurance," § 1.
defendant mailed or caused the letters in ques-
tion to be mailed.-Brooks v. United States (C.
C. A.) 223.

PRESCRIPTION.
In a prosecution for mailing certain letters, Acquisition of rights, see "Waters and Water
in furtherance of a scheme to defraud, in viola-

Courses," $ 3.
tion of Ret. St. § 5480 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901,
p. 3696], the court properly charged that in

PRESENTMENT.
order to convict it must be proved that defend-
ant placed or caused the letters to be placed By grand jury, see "Indictment and Informa-
in the post office, as alleged.-Brooks v. United

tion.”
States (C. C. A.) 223.

PRESUMPTIONS.
PRACTICE

In civil actions, see "Evidence," $ 2.
In patent office, see "Patents," $ 4.

In criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law,"
Procedure of particular courts, see "Courts." $ 2.

*Point annotated. See syllabus.

PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.

Transfers and other matters affecting title.

See “Abandonment."
Admissions by agent, see "Evidence," § 4. Taking for public use, see "Eminent Domain."
Agency in particular relations, offices, or uc-
cupations.

PROSTITUTION.
See "Brokers."

See "Disorderly House."
Corporate agents, see "Corporations," $ 2.
Municipal agents, see “Municipal Corpora-
tions," $ 1.

PROTEST.
8 1. Rights and liabilities as to third see “Customs Duties,” $$ 3, 4.

persons.
Defendants held not entitled to deny the au-
thority of their agent in negotiating a sale of PROVINCE OF COURT AND JURY.
land, and at the same time retain money paid
defendants by the purchaser on the faith of the In civil actions, see "Trial,” $ 3.
agent's representations.-Schiffer V. Anderson
(C. C. A.) 457.

PUBLIC LANDS.
*One who has dealt with an agent cannot,
upon discovery of an undisclosed principal, Appropriation of water rights, see "Waters
hold both the agent and the principal liable and Water Courses," § 1
on the contract, but must elect between the Minerals lands, see "Mines and Minerals," $ 1.
two, and an election once made he must abide
by it.—Berry V. Chase (C. C. A.) 625.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
*Acts of an accredited agent within the ap-
parent scope of his authority, held the acts of his See "Schools and School Districts,” § 1.
principal.-Mather v. Barnes, Keighley & Greer
(C. C.) 1000.

PUBLIC USE.
PRINCIPAL AND SURETY. Taking property for public use, see "Eminent

Domain."
Sureties on injunction bonds, see "Injunction,"
$ 5.

PUNISHMENT.
PRIORITIES.

For contempt of court, see "Contempt,” $ 2.
Of claims against estate of bankrupt, see

QUANTUM MERUIT.
“Bankruptcy,” § 6.

See “Work and Labor.”
PRIVILEGE.

QUARANTINE.
Of witness as to testimony, see "Witnesses,"
$ 2.

Liability for hire of vessel during quarantine,

see "Shipping," $ 1.
PROCESS.

RAILROADS.
Effect of appearance, see "Appearance."
Particular forms of writs or other process.

See "Street Railroads."
See “Garnishment”; “Injunction"; "Manda- As employers, see "Master and Servant.”
mus."

Attachment of railroad cars, see "Attach-

ment," $ 1.
PROMISSORY NOTES.

Carriage of goods and passengers, see "Car-

riers.
See "Bills and Notes."

§ 1. Operation.

*In an action against a railroad company un-

der Rev. St. Ohio, 1906, § 3365–6 to recover
PROPERTY.

for a loss of property by fire alleged to have

been caused by sparks from a locomotive the
Particular species of property.

defendant is not required to produce a pre-
See "Copyrights”; “Mines and Minerals”; ponderance of evidence bearing on the question
"Shipping"; "Trade-Marks and Trade- of negligence to overcome the prima facie case
Names."

made under the statute by proof that the fire

was set by sparks from the locomotive, but it
Remedies involving or affecting property. is sufficient if its evidence counterbalances that
See "Injunction," $ 2.

of plaintiff by which the prima facie case is
*Point annotated. See syllabus.

made out.—Toledo, St. L. & W. R. R. v. Star | a condition precedent to his right to avoid the
Flouring Mills Co. (C. C. A.) 953.

same.-Price v. Connors (C. C. A.) 503.
*In an action against a railroad company to
recover for a loss of property by fire alleged

RELEVANCY.
to have been caused by sparks from a locomotive,
evidence that other fires were set by sparks Of evidence in civil actions, see "Evidence," $ 3.
from the same locomotive on the same day is Of evidence in criminal prosecutions, see
admissible in rebuttal of testimony introduced

"Criminal Law," $ 2.
by defendant as to the efficiency and good con-
dition of the spark arrestor.-Toledo, St. L. &

REMAINDERS.
W. R. R. v. Star Flouring Mills Co. (C. C. A.)
953.

See “Life Estates."
RATE.

REMAND.
For carriage of goods, see “Carriers,” § 1.

Of cause removed from state court, see "Re-

moval of Causes," $ 4.
RATIFICATION.
Of act of broker, see "Brokers," $ 2.

REMEDY AT LAW.
Of contract, see "Contracts," $ 1.

Effect on jurisdiction of equity, see "Equity,"

§ 1.
REAL ACTIONS.
See "Ejectment."

REMOVAL OF CAUSES.

§ 1. Power to remove and right of re-
REAL ESTATE AGENTS.

moval in general.

*A proceeding by a corporation to condemn
See "Brokers."

lands under the eminent domain statute of Mon-

tana (Code Civ. Proc. tit. 7, pt. 3) is a civil
RECEIVERS.

suit and removable into a federal court where

the requisite diversity of citizenship and value
Appointment in bankruptcy proceedings, see in controversy appear.--Helena Power Trans-
"Bankruptcy," $ 1.

mission Co. v. Spratt (C. C.) 310.
§ 1. Title to and possession of property. $ 2. Citizenship or alienage of partieg.

*An attorney who received a check from a *Where it appears from the record in a pro-
corporation as a retainer for services to be ceeding in a state court to condemn land that
rendered, and who presented and received pay- the equitable title to the land is in a defendant
ment of the check after he had knowledge that who is a citizen of the state, while the legal
a receiver had been appointed for the property title is in another defendant who is a citizen of
of the corporation will be required to turn over another state, there is no separable controversy
the sum so received to the receiver.-Bowker v. between the plaintiff and the nonresident de-
Haight & Freese Co. (C. C.) 257.

fendant which entitles the latter to remove the
cause.—Helena Power Transmission Co.

Spratt (C. C.) 310.
REFERENCE

*In a suit to enjoin the destruction of a
See "Arbitration and Award."

water privilege by diverting water from a
For accounting in infringement suit, see “Pat- stream, the complainant may properly join
ents," $ 6.

as defendants the persons who are undertaking
In bankruptcy proceedings, see “Bankruptcy,” | contracted to do the work, and ask for a com-

such diversion and one with whom they have
§ 4.

mon injunction against all, and in such case

there is no separable controversy which en-
REFORMATION OF INSTRUMENTS. titles the former to remove the cause when

the contractor could not.-McMillan v. Noyes
See "Cancellation of Instruments."

(C. C.) 926.

§ 3. Prejudice, local influence, or denial
RELEASE.

of civil rights.

*A cause is not removable from the state to
See "Payment."

a federal court for prejudice of the inhabitants
Of claim of seaman for compensation, see "Sea- and local influence under Act March 3, 1887, c.
men.”

373, 24 Stat. 553, § 2, cl. 4, as corrected by

Act Aug. 13, 1888, c. 866, § 2, 25 Stat. 434 [U.
§ 1. Requisites and validity.

S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 509] if it consists of a
In an action for personal injuries, plaintiff controversy partly between citizens of the same
held bound to repay or tender the amount re- state.-Southern Ry. Co. V. Thomason (U. C.
ceived by him for the execution of a release as 'A.) 972.

*Point annotated. See syllabus.

[ocr errors]
« НазадПродовжити »