as neither the mortgagors nor any
one claiming under them were in
possession, such would not be the ef-
fect of proceeding with the suit for
foreclosure merely, and that the de-
murrer must be overruled.
id.

See BANKRUPTCY, 25.
LIEN, 7.

N

NATURALIZATION.

1. B. registered as a voter, on the pro-
duction of a certificate of his natural-
ization, which had been issued by a
State Court without his presence in
Court, and without any oath having
been taken by him.
The certificate
was regular on its face. On an in-
dictment against B., under § 5426 of
the Revised Statutes, for using, for
the purpose of registering as a voter,
a naturalization certificate, knowing
the same to have been unlawfully
issued: Held, that the mere fact that
B. knew that the certificate had been
issued without his presence in Court,
and without any oath being taken by
him, was not sufficient to warrant a
conviction. United States v. Burley,

91

2. It is provided by § 2165 of the Re-
vised Statutes of the United States,
that an alien may be admitted to be
a citizen of the United States by "a
Court of record of any of the States,
having common law jurisdiction, and
a seal and clerk." A City Court,
which is a Court of record and has a
seal and a clerk, and has conferred
upon it, by a statute of New York,
all the power and jurisdiction of jus-
tices of the peace, and all jurisdiction
and power, within the city, of the
Marine Court in the city of New
York, and whose judge is clothed
with all the powers of a county judge
and of a judge of the Supreme Court
of the State at chambers, and which
has civil jurisdiction in all actions
for the recovery of money, when the
amount recovered does not exceed
$1,000, is a Court having common
law jurisdiction, within the meaning

3.

4.

The sailing vessel has a right to
rely on the observance of the rules
of navigation by the tug, and cannot
herself safely depart from them. id.

Judgment as to the motion, or direc-
tion of motion, of one vessel, made
from another, possesses the utmost
uncertainty; for, the tendency is
nearly irresistible for the observer
to transfer to the other vessel the
motion of that on which he stands,
and thus to regard the compounded
motion of the two as belonging to
that one which he is observing.

See COLLISION.
TOWAGE.

NEGLIGENCE.

id.

1. A steam-tug, having a canal-boat in
tow astern, going up the Hudson
river, was hailed by the canal-boat
to land her, and that she was leaking.
The tug ran in towards a dock, and
stopped and hailed the canal-boat to
cast-off. She was cast-off by her
hands, but one of the lines jammed.
She had made no preparation of lines
by which to reach the shore, and she
had no anchor. She drifted up the
river, and sank an hour or more after
she was cast-off. The tug went on
and gave no aid to the canal-boat:
Held, that both vessels were in fault,
and that the tug was liable for one-
half of the damages. The J. L. Has-
brouck,
30

12. Damages, (20 to 25.)
13. Profits, (26 to 29.)
14. Particular Patents.

(1.) Metropolitan Washing Ma-
chine Co.-Clothes-wring-
er, (30.)
(2.) Lippmann-Corset-clasp, (31.)
(3.) Clark-Manufacture of bolts,
(32 to 34.)

(4.) Severance - Rock-drill, (35,
36.)

(5.) Schillinger-Concrete pave-
ment, (37, 38.)

(6.) Miller's Falls Mfg. Co.-Bit-
brace-Amidon-Bit-brace,

(39 to 42.)

(7.) Bruff-Auger machinery, (43,
44.)

(8.) Miller & Co.—Lamp, (45, 46.)
(9.) Deuchfield-Cooling and dry-
ing meal, (47, 48.)

(10.) Eppinger-Plug and bunch
tobacco, (49 to 51.)

(11.) Hopkins & Dickinson Mfg.
Co.-Sash-lock, (52.)

(12.) Black-Tempering umbrella
ribs, (53 to 55.)

(13.) Pinner-Tin-can, (56 to 62)
(14.) Bailey-Plane, (63.)

1. Patents Generally.

See 57.

2. Invention.

See 31, 48 to 51, 59.

1859. The application was rejected in February, 1859. No appeal was taken. In February, 1860, the application was withdrawn, and the

contained in the combination originally claimed. Herring v. Nelson,

293

May, 1868, C. filed a new application, which was rejected on the ground of abandonment. This decision was affirmed by the Commissioner of Patents, and his decision was reversed by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. The Commissioner then declined to issue the patent. After the passage of the Patent Act of July 8th, 1870, (16 U. S. Stat. at Large, 198,) a new application was filed, and the patent was issued, it being for "improvements in breech loading guns." During the 8 years from 1860 to 1868, C. obtained 22 patents on his own application, 9 of them relating to breech-loading firearms, and though, during a part of the time, he was poor, and in debt, and in ill health, he prosecuted his other inventions with energy. During the same interval patents were granted to others embodying his inventions: Held, that, under § 35 of said Act of 1870, which provides that, upon the hearing of the renewal, provided for by that section, of an application before rejected or withdrawn, "abandonment shall be considered as a question of fact," the decision of the Commissioner on the

94

4. The use of an invention for mere competitive examination, experiment and test, is not a public use. id.

6. Specification.

See 30, 60.

7. Reissue.

5. A patent for a combination of old elements may be reissued for a combination of fewer elements than were VOL. XIV.-38

510

The conditions in the instrument executed by B. to S. were held to be conditions subsequent, and it was held that such right as passed to S. remained till a forfeiture was enforced. id.

See 16, 29.

9. Infringement.

A constructor of a machine infringes,

if he makes his machine with express reference to a result which he knows will happen when the machine is put to its use, and which result, if originally introduced in the machine, is an infringement. American Boring Co. v. Sullivan Machine Co., 119

10. Where a patented invention is merely a combination subordinate to pre-existing devices, and has been limited to such sub-combination by the language of the claim, the patentee cannot successfully insist that he is entitled to cover by such claim the pre-existing devices; and this is true where one of the joint inventors of the junior invention is also the inventor of the senior inventions. Hopkins Mfg. Co. v. Corbin, 896

See 7, 11, 19, 34, 42, 52, 54, 58, 61 to 63.

13. Twenty days before the expiration
of a patent for self-raising flour, mo-
tions for injunctions, in over 50 suits,
to restrain the infringement of the
patent, were made. All of the suits
but one were against grocers who
were selling the flour. One was
against a manufacturer. The patent
had been sustained, on final hearing,
in other suits, but had been much
litigated, and until recently. Since
then there had been no unnecessary
delay: Held, that no laches could be
imputed to the plaintiff. Rumford
Chemical Works v. Vice,

179

16. An application was made for a pre
liminary injunction, to restrain a
cemetery corporation from using a
stone-breaking machine, in infringe-
ment of a patent. The machine was
used to break stone to keep in repair
the roads of the cemetery. The de.
fendant set up a license. The plaint-
iff exercised his monopoly by grant-
ing licenses to use his machine. The
defendants offered to pay into Court
the amount of the license fee on its
machine, to abide a final decision on
the question of the existence of a

17. P. obtained a patent, as inventor, in
March, 1874, for an "improvement
in bungs for casks." In June, 1876,
B. applied for a patent, as inventor,
for the same invention. An inter-
ference was declared, and proofs
were taken. The examiner decided

in favor of P. On appeal, the board
of examiners decided in favor of B
On further appeal, the Commissioner
of Patents decided in favor of P
After the issue of the patent to P., B
and F. were in partnership with P.,
and the firm made the bungs and ad-
vertised them as secured by patent.
After the dissolution of such part-
nership, B. and F continued to make
the bungs: Held, that P. was entitled
to a preliminary injunction to re-
strain B. and F. from so doing.
Pentlarge v. Beeston,

352

was arrived at, by taking $75, the
price for which the plaintiff sold his
time-detectors, and deducting there-
from $21 75, composed of $18, cost
of making, and $3 75, commission
paid for selling. The defendant was
manufacturing under a patent, and
was not a willful infringer. It was
not made to appear that those who
purchased from the defendant would
have purchased from the plaintiff:
Held,

(1.) That the basis adopted by the mas
ter for computing the damages was
erroneous, in assuming that those
who bought from the defendant
would have bought from the plaint-
iff;

(2.) That it was also erroneous in in-
cluding in the $53 25 the manufac
turer's profit;

(3.) That the amount of the defendant's

profits was an adequate compensa-
tion for the injury which it had been
shown the plaintiff had suffered.
Buerk v. Imhaeuser,

19

21. The rule of damages for the in-
fringement of a patent, considered.
Magic Ruffle Co. v. Elm City Co.,

109

22. In the case of a patent for an or-
namental chain, as a new article of
manufacture, where there is a differ-
ence in kind between the patented
chain and prior chains, and where
what was open to the public could
not make a chain like the patented
article in its peculiar characteristics,
the patentee is not, in ascertaining
the damages sustained by him by
the infringement of his patent, limited
to the advantage derived by the de-
fendant from using the peculiar fea-
tures of the patented chain over
what advantage he would have had
from using what was so open to the
public. Mulford v. Pearce, 141

23. In Goulds M'f'g Co. v. Cowing,
(12 Blatchf. C. C. R. 243,) it was
held, that the invention covered by
the plaintiff's patent was of an im-
provement in a pump, and that, as the
plaintiff had failed to show the profits
or damages arising to the defendants
from the use of such improvement,
it was entitled to only nominal dam-
ages. On further evidence being

24. Where a patentee claims, in a suit,
damages for a reduction of his prices,
caused by the defendant by infring-
ing the patent, he must establish, by
satisfactory evidence, not only that a
reduction of his prices was caused by
the in ringement, but how much such
reduction was, and how much of it
was occasioned by the acts o. the de-
fendant, and how much was due to
the fact that the infringing articles
contained the invention patented.
Such evidence must not be estimate,
conjecture and opinion, but must be
such as to afford a sound and safe
basis of calculation. Ingersoll v.
Musgrove,

541

25. Where a patentee claims, as dam-
ages, a loss of profits caused by a loss
of sales, resulting from infringement,
he must establish, by satisfactory
evidence, that he would have sold
more of the patented articles than he
did sell if the infringing articles had
not been sold, and what profit he
would have made on them, and what
part of such profit is to be assigned
to the invention patented. Such
evidence must not be conjecture and
speculation.
id.

See EQUITY, 1 to 3.
13. Profits.

26. In ascertaining the profits derived
by a defendant from the use of a pat-
ented improvement in a furnace for
burning wet tan as fuel, the plaintiff
must show, before the master, the
particular profits which accrued to
the defendant from using such im-
provement, and is not entitled to the
entire profits arising from the use of
the furnace. Black v. Munson, 265

27. Where the plaintiff fails to give

evidence as to such particular profits,
the Court will not consider excep-
tions taken by the plaintiff to what