MINES AND MINERALS. MULTIFARIOUSNESS. Validity of contract to convey mining location, In pleading, see "Equity," § 2. § 1. Public mineral lands. *A relocation of a mining claim admits the MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS. Jurisdiction of equity to avoid, see "Equity," MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. first location was void.-Zerres v. Vanina (C. Binding effect of state decision on federal court C. A.) 564. MISREPRESENTATION. By insured, see "Insurance," § 2. MONEY RECEIVED. as to contract with water company, see Regulation of railroads, see "Railroads," § 3. Water supply, see "Waters and Water Cours- 1. Public improvements. *Act Ohio May 12, 1886 (83 Ohio Laws, p. Action of to recover benefits under contract in 146), authorizing cities of the fourth grade of MORTGAGES. Construction of contract in general, see "Con- Effect of proceedings in bankruptcy, see "Bank- Estoppel of mortgagee to object to continuation Of personal property, see "Chattel Mortgages." § 1. Construction and operation. An after-acquired property clause in a mort- the second class to contract with the owners of *One who places an obstruction in a street by NAMES. gage given by a beet sugar manufacturing com- See "Trade-Marks and Trade-Names." NATIONAL BANKS. See "Aliens," § 2. NATURALIZATION. NAVIGABLE WATERS. tory, which constituted the principal part of See "Banks and Banking," § 1. MOTIONS. Direction of verdict in civil actions, see "Trial," For remand of cause to state court, see "Remov- Relating to pleadings, see "Pleading," § 3. NAVIGATION. Rules for preventing collisions, see "Collision,” NEGLIGENCE. By particular classes of persons. Employers, see "Master and Servant," § 1. Character, ground of jurisdiction, see "Appeal Opening or vacating judgment, see "Judgment," Death, ground for abatement, see "Abatement 1. Grounds. The verdict of a jury in an action to recover NONSUIT. Before trial, see "Dismissal and Nonsuit." NOVATION. and Revival," § 1. Petition for involuntary bankruptcy by inter- In particular actions or proceedings. On appeal in bankruptcy, see "Bankruptcy," Persons concluded by judgment, see "Judg- To construe will, see "Wills," § 1. To conveyances, contracts, or other transactions. *A voluntary association having many mem- As discharging surety, see "Principal and Sure-bers may be brought into court, under equity OBJECTIONS. OPINION EVIDENCE. In civil actions, see "Evidence," § 3. OPTIONS. rule 48, by service on its officers and such of its C. A.) 517. ners. *Under Carter's Alaska Code, p. 145, § 1, the partnership assumed its payment.-Fish v. had been sustained by the Circuit Court of ApFirst Nat. Bank (C. C. A.) 524. *The Van Depoele reissued patent, No. 11,872 (Original No. 495,443), for a traveling contact for electric railways, is void because of the delay in making application therefor.-ThomsonHouston Electric Co. v. Sterling-Meaker Co. (C. C.) 589. § 3. Title, conveyances, and contracts. *A parol license under a patent may be sustained and specifically enforced as between the parties. Cook v. Sterling Electric Co. (C. C. A.) 766. *The manufacture and sale by a corporation for use of an article in which there was a device covered by a patent owned by its president held to carry an implied license under such patent.-O'Rourke Engineering Const. Co. v. McMullen (C. C.) 338. *An assignment of patents and inventions held not so worded as to charge a third person with notice that it was intended to cover inventions made wholly afterward, so as to preclude him from obtaining title to a patent for such an invention.-Davis & Roesch Temperature Controlling Co. v. Tagliabue (C. C.) 372. peals, and the defense was its invalidity by reason of anticipation.-Elite Pottery Co. v. Dececo Co. (C. C. A.) 581. The fact that the machine of a patent has never been put into commercial use does not preclude the owner of the patent from maintaining a suit in equity to enjoin its infringement. -Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co. (C. C. A.) 741. *An order granting a preliminary injunction to restrain infringement of a patent affirmed on appeal as within the discretion of the court.Scott v. Laas (C. C. A.) 764. *The sale by a defendant which has been enjoined from infringing a patent for a soundproducing apparatus of a talking machine of records which are capable of use with the other elements of the patented apparatus, and which are intended to be and are so used by purchasers of such apparatus from complainant, constitutes a contributory infringement and a violation of the injunction.-Victor Talking Mach. Co. v. Leeds & Catlin Co. (C. C.) 147. Where large numbers of an article containing a patented device are made and sold under circumstances which carry an implied license from the patentee to use the same, in a suit by a subsequent owner of the patent for infringement against a user of one of such articles which has been long in use, the defendant cannot be required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the article owned and used by him is one of those covered by the implied license.— O'Rourke Engineering Const. Co. v. McMullen (C. C.) 338. *The replacing by a purchaser and user of a patented article of a part which is peculiarly subject to wear or destruction, and which does not constitute a chief element of the patented invention, is within his rights as a repair, and cannot be considered a reconstruction to subject him to liability as an infringer.-O'Rourke Engineering Const. Co. v. McMullen (C. C.) 338. Two wheels or pulleys connected together, so as to revolve as one, by bolts or other close fastenings, and a single wheel cast with two peripheral contacts, are mechanical equivalents, where they operate in the same manner to produce the same result, and the substitution of one for the other in a patented device does not avoid infringement.-Lidgerwood Mfg. Co. v. Lambert Hoisting Engine Co. (C. C.) 364. The Downes patent, No. 709.001, for an improved process for applying asbestos insulation to electrical conductors, construed, and held not infringed.-Downes v. Teter-Heany Develop-§ ment Co. (C. C. A.) 122. The sustaining of a motion by defendant for judgment on the pleadings in an action for infringement of a patent, in which a plea of res judicata was interposed, held error.-Robinson v. American Car & Foundry Co. (C. C. A.) 331. 5. Decisions on the validity, construction, and infringement of particular patents. The Condit patent, No. 358.545, for a stove lining, construed, and held not infringed.-Germer Stove Co. v. Art Stove Co. (C. C. A.) 141. The Campbell patent, No. 447,757, for an improvement in incandescent burners and method of using the same, held void both for lack of invention and anticipation.-Pennsylvania Globe Gaslight Co. v. Cleveland Vapor Light Co. (C. C.) 583. *Point annotated. See syllabus. *The granting of a preliminary injunction restraining infringement of a patent by a former licensee thereunder held within the discretion of the court, where the validity of the patent The North patent, No. 480,029, for a conveying apparatus, held not anticipated, valid, and infringed.-Lidgerwood Mfg. Co. v. Lambert Hoisting Engine Co. (C. C.) 364. The Moran patent, No. 500,149, for an air lock, held not infringed as to claim 2, and void for lack of invention as to claim 3.-O'Rourke Engineering Const. Co. v. McMullen (C. C.) 338. The Barr patent, No. 514,843, for an air lock for caissons, held void for lack of invention as to claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 8.-O'Rourke Engineering Const. Co. v. McMullen (C. C.) 338. The Downes patent, No. 534,785, for a process of applying asbestos insulation to electrical conductors and its product, construed, and held not infringed.-Downes v. Teter-Heany Development Co. (C. C. A.) 122. The Dusedau patent, No. 548,973, for a cable hoist, is void for lack of invention.-Lidgerwood Mfg. Co. v. Lambert Hoisting Engine Co. (C. C.) 364. The Liddell patent, No. 558,969, for a paper bag machine, held valid and infringed.-Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co. (C. C. A.) 741. The Germer patent, No. 587,368, for a firepot and grate for stoves, is void as to claim 1 for lack of invention, and as to claim 2 for indefiniteness of description.-Germer Stove Co. v. Art Stove Co. (C. C. A.) 141. The Way patent, No. 593,954, for a chest and neck protector, claim 2 held void for lack of invention.-Way v. Hygienic Fleeced Underwear Co. (C. C.) 374. 6. Patents enumerated. 420. Incandescent burner, cited....583, 588 1886. 8,097. Incandescent burner, held to anticipate patent No. 447,757...583, 587 UNITED STATES. ORIGINAL. 348 144 7,526. Hook and eye package, cited..... 599 219,737. Portable gasoline-fed Bunsen burn- 253,446. 266,404. Water closet, cited. 348 348 124 584 124 348 581 348 313,849. Gas sealing door, cited......348, 354 355 limited, held not infringed..141, 142 Door opener and closer for furnaces, cited...... 354 The Burke patent, No. 631,518, for a frame 365,077. Gas sealing door, cited.......348, 354 for electric motors, is void for anticipation.- 383,919. Insulation of electrical conductors, New England Motor Co. v. B. F. Sturtevant Co. (C. C. A.) 131. cited..... 401,394. Charging apparatus for blast-furnaces, cited.... The Beck patent, No. 647,934, for a manifold-413,031. Tower for elevation and storage of ing sales book and holder, held void for anticipation.-American Sales Book Co. v. Carter- 415,212. Crume Co. (C. C. A.) 333. The Ripley & Wadsworth patents, Nos. 661,025 and 661,024, for a process and apparatus, respectively, for making plate prism glass, held valid and infringed. Patent No. 661,023, to the same patentees, for the product of such process and apparatus as a new article of manufacture, held void for anticipation.-Pressed Prism Plate Glass Co. v. Continuous Glass Press Co. (C. C.) 355. 124 354 The Piez & Beaumont patents, Nos. 668,960, and 688,111, for storage appartus, held void 434,550. for lack of patentable invention.-Dodge Coal 447,757. Storage Co. v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. (C. C. A.) 738. The Bliss patent, No. 669,574, for a frame for electric motors, is void for anticipation.-New England Motor Co. v. B. F. Sturtevant Co. (C. C. A.) 131. 455,789. 476,386. 480,029. 355 369 Conveying apparatus, cited. 355 Device for closing elevator gates, cited.... Conveying apparatus held not anticipated, valid and infringed. 364, 365, 368, 371, 372 487,865. Storage apparatus, cited.. 739 *Point annotated. See syllabus. The Richardson patent, No. 676,824, for a hook and eye package, construed, and held not infringed.-De Long Hook & Eye Co. v. Francis Hook & Eye & Fastener Co. (C. C.) 597. .338, 339 517,359. Manifolding salesbook and holder, 141, 142 374, 375 593,954. Chest and neck protector, claim 2, 594,286. Casting composite, cited. PENALTIES. For defective equipment of railroad cars, see Review in action to recover penalty as depend- PERSONAL INJURIES. Particular causes or means of injury. Particular classes of persons injured. Traveler on highway crossing railroad, see Remedies. Taking case from jury, see "Trial," § 1. PERSONAL PROPERTY. 331 See "Property." ..741, 742 614,819. Insulation of electrical conductors, 631,320. Air lock for caissons, cited.. anticipation.. 129 .. 131 glass, held valid and infringed.. 355 688,111. Storage apparatus, held void for 738, 740 REISSUE. 11,872. Traveling contact for electric rail- PETITION. In bankruptcy, see "Bankruptcy," §§ 1, 2. PICKETING. Right to enjoin, see "Injunction," §§ 1-3. PIPE LINES. Objections to parties in action to recover pro- PLEADING. In actions by or against particular classes of ways, held void.......589, 500, 592 Appealability of order striking pleading, see PAYMENT. Of insurance, see "Insurance," § 5. 1. Demurrer or exception. *A general demurrer to a count in a declara- *Point annotated. See syllabus. |