36 (App.D.C.) Application for patented valve device for heavy steam and water pressures rejected. In re Vissering, 10 F. (2d) 1010. (B) Novelty. 39 (U.S.D.C.Cal.) "Pioneer patent" defined. -Spengler Core Drilling Co. v. Spencer, 10 F. (2d) 579. 41 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Rights under patent covering new and novel combination of old elements stated.-Myers v. Hadfield-Penfield Steel Co., 10 F. (2d) 56. 42 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) New combination of old elements, producing a new and useful result, is patentable.-Belknap v. Wallace Addressing Mach. Co., 10 F. (2d) 602. (C) Utility. 49 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Infringement lends force to claim of utility against infringer.-William Bros. Aircraft Corporation v. Gould-Mersereau Co., 10 F. (2d) 44. 49 (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Long unexplained nonuse gives inference against utility. Spengler Core Drilling Co. v. Spencer, 10 F. (2d) 579. (D) Anticipation, 51(1) (U.S.D.C.III.) What would infringe patent, if later, is anticipation, if earlier.Kil-Nock Co. v. Chicago Plating Co., 10 F. (2d) 536. 51(1) (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Actual disclosure may be by lecture and publication in trade paper.Dovan Chemical Corporation v. Corona Cord Tire Co., 10 F. (2d) 598. 51(2) (App.D.C.) Installation of device on railway car held a reduction to practice, as affecting right to priority in interference proceeding.-Campbell v. Gilpin, 10 F. (2d) 644. 54 (U.S.D.C.III.) Anticipation exists even if anticipatory device did not operate as perfectly as patent.-Kil-Nock Co. v. Chicago Plating Co., 10 F. (2d) 536. 62 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Party must establish anticipation beyond a reasonable doubt, to declare patent invalid.-Mead-Morrison Mfg. Co. v. Hauck Mfg. Co., 10 F.(2d) 834. (E) Prior Public Use or Sale. 78 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Prior use to invalidate patent must antedate invention, or have been more than two years before date of filing application.-Abrahams v. Universal Wire Co., 10 F. (2d) 838. (F) Abandonment. 82 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Abandonment not to be based on nonuse because of excessive cost.Dovan Chemical Corporation v. Corona Cord Tire Co., 10 F. (2d) 598. 83 (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Subject-matter of patent for which divisional application was not made until more than three years after required must be treated as abandoned.-Stromberg Motor Devices Co. v. Benecke & Kropf Mfg. Co., 10 F. (2d) 405. 83 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) That patentee permitted prior application to lapse and transferred claims to subsequent application held not to show abandonment of claims.-French v. Buckeye Iron & Brass Works, 10 F. (2d) 257. 87 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Duty rests upon defendant to prove abandonment beyond reasonable doubt.-Abrahams v. Universal Wire Co., 10 F.(2d) 838. III. PERSONS ENTITLED TO PATENTS. 90(1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Patents of earlier application, but making no conflicting claims, do not aid defense of prior invention.-Williams Bros. Aircraft Corporation v. Gould-Mersereau Co., 10 F. (2d) 44. 90 (2) (App.D.C.) Deliberate suppression of invention precludes successful attack on rights of another.-Hambuechen v. Schorger, 10 F. (2d) 1006. 90(3) (App.D.C.) Efforts toward commercial exploitation of invention not reduced to practice do not constitute diligence.-Petersen v. Thomas, 10 F. (2d) 908. 90 (3) (App.D.C.) Delay after conception and reduction to practice in making application held inexcusable.-Hambuechen v. Schorger, 10 F. (2d) 1006. 90(5) (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Patentee of cheap method of manufacture of known article not entitled to monopoly in use of article.-Dovan Chemical Corporation v. Corona Cord Tire Co., 10 F. (2d) 598. 90(5) (App.D.C.) Tests by one employed by same company as inventor held a reduction to practice.-De Forest v. Hartley, 10 F.(2d) 901, 903; White v. Same, 10 F. (2d) 904. Delay in filing application by one who has established prior conception and reduction to practice is not bar to award of priority.-Id. 90 (5) (App.D.C.) Prior conception, without diligence in reducing invention to practice. will not entitle inventor to priority.-Petersen v. Thomas, 10 F. (2d) 908. 91(2) (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Prior inventions admissible to show state of art and aid in construction.-Spengler Core Drilling Co. v. Spencer, 10 F. (2d) 579. 91(3) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Patentee must establish claim to use antedating a prior use, by evidence of at least equal quality to that establishing prior use.-Alfred Hale Rubber Co. v. Morse & Burt Co., 10 F. (2d) 843. 91 (3) (App.D.C.) Evidence held not to entitle junior party in interference proceeding to award of priority.-Buckwalter v. Pratt, 10 F. (2d) 912. 91 (3) (App.D.C.) Evidence of priority of conception held not so doubtful as to be inadequate to support finding.-Clark v. Birdsey, 10 F. (2d) 1001. 91(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Evidence held to sustain defense of prior invention. Myers v. Hadfield-Penfield Steel Co., 10 F. (2d) 56. 91(4) (App.D.C.) Evidence held to establish priority of conception of patent for improved edge of plaster board.-Clark v. Birdsey, 10 F. (2d) 1001. IV. APPLICATIONS AND PROCEEDINGS THEREON. 101 (App.D.C.) In interference proceeding, claims given broad interpretation, warranted by terms, when read in light of application.-Campbell v. Gilpin, 10 F. (2d) 644. 106(1) (App.D.C.) Applicant, barred by two-year public use from procuring patent, held not entitled to destroy rights of another. Hambuechen v. Schorger, 10 F. (2d) 1006. 106(5) (App.D.C.) Right of party to interference proceeding to make contested claims must be challenged by motion to dissolve interference at inception of proceeding.-Rocke v. Bogdonoff, 10 F. (2d) 1005. 109 (App.D.C.) Motion to amend application after taking of testimony as to reduction to practice held properly denied.-Clark v. Birdsey, 10 F. (2d) 1001. 112(1) (App.D.C.) Doctrine of res judicata and estoppel by former judgment applies to adjudications made in Patent Office.-Malone v. Hay, 10 F. (2d) 905. 112(2) (App.D.C.) Commissioner held_not foreclosed, under rule of res judicata, from passing on merits of application.-In re Woodsome, 10 F. (2d) 1003. 112(3) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Presumption of validity of issued patent may be rebutted by proof.-Alfred Hale Rubber Co v. Morse & Burt Co., 10 F. (2d) 843. 112(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Manufacture of device under later patent held not to negative For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER 113(7) (App.D.C.) Error on part of Patent Office in case involving highly technical subject-matter must be clearly shown.-De Forest v. Hartley, 10 F. (2d) 901, 903; White v. Same, 10 F. (2d) 904. V. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY OF LET- 118 (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Claims consisting of complicated elements are not favored by courts. -Johnson Automatic Scale Co. v. Ginn, 10 F. (2d) 793. 118 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Patent need not describe all possible modes of application in order to obtain best results.-Abrahams v. Universal Wire Co., 10 F. (2d) 838. 120 (App.D.C.) Applicants not entitled to patent on broad claims canceled from prior application on division being required.-In re Woodsome, 10 F. (2d) 1003. 129 (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Employee, going with competitor after applying for patent, is estopped to deny patent is valid.-Johnson Automatic Scale Co. v. Ginn, 10 F.(2d) 793. 129 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Utility of patented combination cannot be denied by one who has adopted it.-Abrahams v. Universal Wire Co., 10 F.(2d) 838. IX. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF LETTERS PATENT. (A) In General. 157(1) (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Claim involving mechanism found in every sort of automatic machinery should not be broadened beyond its literal language.-Johnson Automatic Scale Co. v. Ginn, 10 F. (2d) 793. 163 (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Employee, going with competitor after applying for patent, is estopped to deny patent is valid, and is bound by its claims according to its clear language.Johnson Automatic Scale Co. v. Ginn, 10 F. (2d) 793. (B) Limitation of Claims. 165 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Patentee is entitled to advantages inherent in disclosed invention duly claimed, whether he understood them or not.-Lyon v. Boh, 10 F. (2d) 30. 165 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Limitation of narrow claims held not to affect broad claims not so limited.-French v. Buckeye Iron & Brass Works, 10 F. (2d) 257. 165 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Patentee is entitled to benefit of any novelty inherent in mechanism disclosed.-Pickett v. F. B. Stearns Co., 10 F. (2d) 414. 167(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Mont.) Specifications and whole language of patent considered in determining claims of invention.-Greenawalt American Smelting & Refining Co., 10 F.(2d) 98. V. 167(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Patent held not confined to particular form shown in drawings to be preferred one.-French v. Buckeye Iron & Brass Works, 10 F. (2d) 257. That specification sets out particular method impossible of attainment held not to prevent protection for results accomplished.-Id. 168(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Mont.) Claims construed in light of prior decisions in interference proceedings and patentee's amendment thereunder, narrowing claims.-Greenawalt v. American Smelting & Refining Co., 10 F. (2d) 98. 168 (1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Patentee's refusal to claim invention in one-piece automobile buffer held not to estop him from asserting infringement by defendant's one-piece buffer.Lyon v. Boh, 10 F. (2d) 30. Patentee is estopped by acceptance of Patent Office rulings.-Id. 168 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Patentee, limiting claim to obtain patent, cannot claim con struction otherwise permissible.-Hauser X. TITLE, CONVEYANCES, AND CON- ma (C) Licenses and Contracts. XI. REGULATION OF DEALINGS IN PAT- 222 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Proof of marking or of infringement after notice necessary for suit after expiration.-Robinson v. Jeffrey Mfg. Co., 10 F.(2d) 384. XII. INFRINGEMENT. (A) What Constitutes Infringement. 234 (U.S.D.C.Ill.) Infringer cannot escape by giving new names to patented things.Sloan Valve Co. v. John Douglas Co., 10 F. (2d) 885. 235 (U.S.D.C.Minn.) Retaining principle and mode of operation and attaining result by use of same or equivalent mechanical means constitutes infringement, notwithstanding form has been changed.-General Electric Co. v. Minneapolis Electric Lamp Co., 10 F. (2d) 851. 236 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Patent for form is avoided by change of form, but patent for substance cannot be so avoided.-Lyon v. Boh, 10 F. (2d) 30. 253 (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Patent advancing art only slightly given narrow scope.-Spengler Core Drilling Co. v. Spencer, 10 F. (2d) 579. 255 (U.S.D.C.III.) Patentee, by advertising replacement of worn parts by replacement of assembly unit, held not to have licensed public to make such unit.-Connecticut Telephone & Electric Co. v. Brown & Caine, 10 F.(2d) 823. Difficulty in making repair, arising from patentee's form of manufacture, does not entitle user to make replacement, if repair is possible. -Id. Patentee, by advertising replacement of assembly unit, held not to have fixed its legal status as a repair part, when in fact it was replacement.-Id. Patentee may make and user may repair patented device as desired, but user cannot replace elements not worn out.-Id. 259 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Sellers of radio parts, adapted and intended for use in particular manner, held guilty of contributory infringement.-Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Precise Mfg. Corporation, 10 F. (2d) 517. 259 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Essentials of contributory infringement stated.-Belknap v. Wallace Addressing Mach. Co., 10 F. (2d) 602. (C) Suits in Equity. 283(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) That patented device has never been manufactured held not to affect its validity.-French v. Buckeye Iron & Brass Works, 10 F. (2d) 257. 283(1) (U.S.D.C.III.) Language of patentee's advertising construed to vitalize, and not to paralyze, invention.-Connecticut Telephone & Electric Co. v. Brown & Caine, 10 F. (2d) 823. 283(1) (U.S.D.C.Minn.) Fact that patent owner had breached contract with defendant would not be defense to patent infringement suit.-General Electric Co. v. Minneapolis Electric Lamp Co., 10 F. (2d) 851. Counterclaim to patent infringement suit, which is legal and not equitable, cannot be set up.-Id. 297(3) (U.S.D.C.Minn.) Preliminary injunction will be granted, where there has been prior adjudication sustaining patent and infringement thereof in same or another circuit. -General Electric Co. v. Minneapolis Electric Lamp Co., 10 F. (2d) 851. 297 (7) (U.S.D.C.Minn.) New matter, other than introduced in prior suits to sustain validity of patent, must be such as to lead court to believe patent would have been held invalid, in order to defeat preliminary injunction.— General Electric Co. v. Minneapolis Electric Lamp Co., 10 F. (2d) 851. French court's decision, holding patent invalid, can only raise doubt as to validity where patent was held valid in another circuit which had before it French court's decision.-Id. New matter set up with old, insufficient to have changed prior decision sustaining patent, will not defeat issuance of preliminary injunction.-Id. Infringer held to have burden of proving right to segregation of profits.-Id. 327 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Decision in another circuit held binding on parties and privies.— Lyon v. Boh, 10 F. (2d) 30. 327 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Patent decision of Circuit Court of Appeals in particular circuit binding on District Courts of that circuit.Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Precise Mfg. Corporation, 10 F. (2d) 517. XIII. DECISIONS ON THE VALIDITY, CON- 328. 310(7) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Notice required for defense of abandonment must be given by defendant.-Abrahams v. Universal Wire Co., 10 635,280. F. (2d) 838. UNITED STATES. ORIGINAL. 13,163. Disc harrows, held not covered by license as affecting liability for royalties (C. C. A. Ohio) 10 F. (2d) 24. Combined pump and motor, held not infringed (D. C. Wis.) 10 F. (2d) 856. 316 (U.S.D.C.Minn.) Defendant to patent infringement suit cannot compel plaintiff to 824,809. perform contract which it had alleged was illegal and void.-General Electric Co. v. Minneapolis Electric Lamp Co., 10 F. (2d) 851. 852,848. 318(1) (U.S.D.C.Wis.) Liability of infringing manufacturer for manufacture and sale of repair parts.-Christensen v. National Brake 866,887. & Electric Co., 10 F. (2d) 856. Infringer is accountable for profits though enhanced by "improvements" of the patented structure.-Id. 318(2) (U.S.D.C.Wis.) Complainant entitled to finding of both damages and profits V. National against infringer.-Christensen Brake & Electric Co., 10 F. (2d) 856. 318(3) (U.S.D.C.Wis.) As respects liability of infringing manufacturer, "profits" are determined by principles applicable to noninfringing situations.-Christensen v. National Brake & Electric Co., 10 F. (2d) 856. 318(6) (U.S.D.C.Wis.) Determination of invested capital on accounting for profits. Christensen v. National Brake & Electric Co., 10 F. (2d) 856. Taxes and insurance allowable to infringer on accounting for profits.-Id. 935,205. 997,358. 1,009,502. 1,018,502. 1,041,623. 1,113,149. Variable overhead cannot be allocated per unit of infringing product, to make sales ap- 1,113,850. pear unprofitable.-Id. 319(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Claimed loss of profits because of infringement, based on profits from complete manufacture from raw material, which might have been made in filling contract, held untenable.-National Tube Co. v. Mark, 10 F. (2d) 430. Court will resort to doctrine of reasonable royalty, where damages for infringement cannot be ascertained.-Id. Lubricator, claims 1, 2 and 4, held not held anticipated and invalid (D. C. Double-barrel type rotary core drill, held invalid, not pioneer and not in- Double leaf spring to co-operate with breaker arm of igniting device, claim 6, held valid and infringed (D. C. Ill.) 10 F. (2d) 823. 1,114,398. Relating to flush valve for watercloset bowl, claim 2, held valid and infringed (D. C. Ill.) 10 F. (2d) 885. 1,128,773. Carburetor attachments, claims 1-6, 11, 17-22, and 25-27, held invalid (C. C. A. Ill.) 10 F. (2d) 405. Automobile throttle valve controller, claim 3, held not anticipated, valid and infringed (C. C. A. N. Y.) 10 F. (2d) 44. Reasonable royalty may be determined, even though no royalty had been fixed, and in ab- 1,139,685. sence of express evidence of amount.--Id. Amount of reasonable royalty for patent infringement stated.-Id. 1,140,808. Apparatus for cooking oil-bearing material, claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, and 15-21, held valid; claims 1720, held infringed (C. C. A. Ohio) 10 F.(2d) 257. 319(1) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Plaintiff may recover gains and profits of defendant in damages suffered, notwithstanding that no prayer for recovery of damages suffered by licensees.-Abrahams v. Universal Wire Co., 10 F. (2d) 838, 319(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Interest on dam- 1,158,186. Machine for wrapping cartons, claims ages on fixed royalty basis calculated from date of infringement, and may be applied to recov eries of reasonable royalty.-National Tube Co. v. Mark, 10 F. (2d) 430. Interest allowed on damages for patent infringement for one-half of period of unreason- 1,166,734. able delay in filing master's report where neither party was to blame.-Id. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 22, held invalid; claim 26, held not infring ed; claims 28 and 29, held valid and not infringed (D. C. Mass.) 10 F. (2d) 793. Carburetor attachments, claim 15, held invalid (C. C. A. Ill.) 10 F. (2d) 405. 322 (U.S.D.C.Wis.) Accounting for profits 1,180,159. Incandescent lamp and bodies, claims by infringer.-Christensen v. National Brake & Electric Co., 10 F. (2d) 856. For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER 1,198,246. Motor vehicle buffer, claims 9, 14, 1,501,032. Acoustic horn, claims 1 and 2, held and 18, held infringed (C. C. Á. N. Y.) 10 F. (2d) 3Q. 1,198,860. Self-closing player-controlling switch music-playing device, claims 10 15,671. 1,198,861. Coin-receiving automatic music-play- 1,204,104. Breaker assembly replacement unit in igniting device, claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 11, held valid and infringed (D. C. Ill.) 10 F. (2d) 823. 1,221,239. Slip terminal plug for electrical connection, claims 1, 2, and 3, held valid and infringed (D. C. II.) 10 F. (2d) 823. 1,228,171. Anticreeper devices, claims 10, 12, 1,235,680. Device for preparing string beans 1,270,416. Machine for wrapping cartons, claims 1,284,523. Accelerator attachment, claims 1 and 2, held infringed (C. C. A. N. Y.) 10 F. (2d) 44. 1,314,799. Moisture-proof garment for infants, held invalid (D. C. N. Y.) 10 F. (2d) 399. 1,330,231. White gold alloy, claim 3, held invalid (C. C. A. N. Y.) 10 F. (24) 673. 1,335,389. Carburetor improvements, held not infringed (C. C. A. Ill.) 10 F. (2d) 405. 1,348,407. Apparatus for roasting ores, claims 17, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 47, 48, and 49, held not infringed (C. C. A. Mont.) 10 F. (2d) 98. 1,362,856. Rear view mirror within automobile windshield, held invalid (D. C. N. Y.) 10 F. (2d) 620. 1,374,553. Improvement in electric transformer tanks, held invalid (D. C. Pa.) 10 F. (2d) 593. 1,399,570. Frame structure for attachment with 1,401,942. Mirror on side wind deflector for au- valid and infringed (D. C. N. Y.) 10 F. (2d) 838. REISSUED. Improved automatic bearing bolt and attachments for internal combustion engines, held invalid (D. C. Ill.) 10 F. (2d) 536. PAYMENT. 1. REQUISITES AND SUFFICIENCY. 12(5) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Shipper held entitled to recover stated amount of Italian lire for duplicate freight paid at exchange rate existing when decree was entered.-The Muskegon, 10 F. (2d) 817. Rate of exchange applied in computing freight claims against ship stated.-Id. PLEADING. See Equity, 263. For pleadings in particular actions or proceed- I. FORM AND ALLEGATIONS IN GENERAL. 8(6) (U.S.C.C.A.Conn.) Allegation that ship was unlawfully withheld from possession held mere conclusion.-The Blairmore I, 10 F. (2d) 35. 34 (4) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Pleadings construed most strongly against pleader.-Lyons v. Reinecke, 10 F.(2d) 3. 34 (4) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Pleadings are no longer construed in hostile sense, but to reach their true meaning.-Federal Coal Co. v. Royal Bank of Canada, 10 F. (2d) 679. III. PLEA OR ANSWER, CROSS-COM- OF DEFENSE. (F) Affidavit of Defense or of Merits. 160 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Under Pennsylvania Practice Act, affidavit of defense, raising questions of law, admits facts well pleaded.-Beatty v. Heiner, 10 F. (2d) 390. V. DEMURRER OR EXCEPTION. 214(1) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) On demurrer, facts stated in declaration taken as pleaded.-Lyons v. Reinecke, 10 F. (2d) 3. 214(5) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Statement of law in declaration may be disregarded as mere conclusion.-Lyons v. Reinecke, 10 F.(2d) 3. VI. AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS AND REPLEADER. 236(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Federal courts exercise broad discretion in allowing amendments of pleadings.-Griffin v. Thompson, 10 F. 236 (5) (2d) 127. (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Allowance of amendment increasing plaintiff's claim to conform to proof is within discretion of court.Walker Grain Co. v. Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co., 10 F. (2d) 272. 245(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Trial amendment of petition, in action on written guaranty of value of corporate stock, held properly permitted.-Griffin v. Thompson, 10 F. (2d) 127. XIII. DEFECTS AND OBJECTIONS, WAIVER, AND AIDER BY VERDICT OR JUDGMENT. 418(3) (App.D.C.) Error in sustaining demurrer to replication is waived by pleading over.-Poling v. Jeffords. 10 F. (2d) 653. 428 (7) (App.D.C.) Objection to pleadings, as not broad enough for particular evidence, is waived by introduction of controverting evidence. Trenerry v. Fravel, 10 F. (2d) 1011. POISONS. 9 (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Conviction for sale of narcotics sustained.-Ray v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 359. POST OFFICE. I. POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, POST OFFICES, POSTMASTERS, AND OTHER OFFICERS. IJI. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES AS TO THIRD PERSONS. (A) Powers of Agent. 6 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Plaintiff held not entitled to recover rental value of premises used as post office, where they had defaulted under express contract by not paving street and grad-136 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Authorized agent ing alley in accordance with proposal.-McManus v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 971. III. OFFENSES AGAINST POSTAL LAWS. 35 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Brokers held part of customer's scheme to defraud when participating with knowledge thereof (Criminal Code, § 215 [Comp. St. § 10385]). Silkworth v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 711. All who with criminal intent join themselves to principal schemer are liable (Criminal Code, $215 [Comp. St. § 10385]).—Id. Floor broker, assisting copartnership in illicit trading, held participant in scheme to defraud (Criminal Code, § 215 [Comp. St. § 10385]).-Id. is not liable for breach of contract made on behalf of principal, except where agency is concealed or when contracting as ostensible principal.-Mallory S. S. Co. v. Garfield, 10 F. (2d) 664. (C) Unauthorized and Wrongful Acts. 155(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Party signing negotiable instrument as agent without authority held liable thereon.-Pain v. Holtcamp, 10 F. (2d) 443. 161(2) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Principal may repudiate unauthorized act by one assuming to act as agent.-The Capitaine Faure, 10 F. (2d) 950. (D) Ratification. President of Stock Exchange, advising par;164(1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Principal may ties whom he knew were insolvent and engaged ratify unauthorized act by one assuming to act in illegal business, to continue in business, as agent. The Capitaine Faure, 10 F. (2d) 950. held accessory to scheme to defraud (Crim-167 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Generally ratification inal Code, 88 215, 332 [Comp. St. §§ 10385, may be by parol.-The Capitaine Faure, 10 F. 10506]).-Id. (2d) 950. Intent to use mails at time of entering into scheme need not be shown (Criminal Code, § 215 [Comp. St. § 10385]).-Id. 35 (U.S.D.C.Tex.) Managing officers of corporation could not be convicted of using mails to defraud, if they did not participate therein, regardless of their negligence.-U. S. v. Foster, 10 F.(2d) 577. than one 48 (8) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) More misrepresentation may be charged, as long as they are part of same scheme, and proof of one will sustain indictment (Criminal Code, 8 215 [Comp. St. § 10385]).-Silkworth v. U. S., 10 F.(2d) 711. 49 (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Evidence held to sustain conviction of robbing persons in charge of mail.--Colbeck v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 401. 49 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Evidence held to support conviction of use of mails in fraudulent scheme (Criminal Code, § 215 [Comp. St. 8 10385]).-Silkworth v. Ú. S., 10 F. (2d) 711. In prosecution for using mails to defraud, proof on cross-examination that defendant had dealings with other firms engaged in like operations as his codefendants held competent to show knowledge.--Id. 49 (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Letters held shown by evidence, on prosecution for illegal use, to have been received through mails.-Baker v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 60. 49 (U.S.C.C.A.Wis.) Conviction of using mails to defraud warranted by evidence.-Neu v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 146. 51 (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Sentence on several counts for use of mails to defraud held not excessive punishment.-Baker v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 60. PRACTICE. For practice in particular actions and proceedings, see the various specific topics. PRESCRIPTION. See Limitation of Actions. PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. See Attorney and Client; Factors. 170(3) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Principal, desiring to challenge agent's doings, must not postpone too long.-Royal Bank of Canada v. Universal Export Corporation, 10 F. (2d) 669. 170(3) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Laches may rest on failure promptly to deny agent's authority arising even by implication.--Mercantile Bank of the Americas v. Flower Lighterage Co., 10 F. (2d) 705. 171(1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Principal, desiring to challenge agent's doings, must not postpone too long, or undertake any project based on their propriety.-Royal Bank of Canada v. Universal Export Corporation, 10 F. (2d) 669. 175(1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) As one who ratifies act must accept its consequences, principal liable for agent's ratified torts.-Irving Nat. Bank v. Law, 10 F. (2d) 721. rati 175(3) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Principal's fication of agent's unauthorized act is equivalent to prior authority to perform it. The Capitaine Faure, 10 F.(2d) 950. PRINCIPAL AND SURETY. See Indemnity. II. NATURE AND EXTENT OF LIABILITY OF SURETY. 59 (App.D.C.) Contract of suretyship strictly construed, and not extended by imor presumption.-Commercial Nat. plication Bank of Washington v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. of America, 10 F. (2d) 641. III. DISCHARGE OF SURETY. 99 (App.D.C.) Where amount of bank's advances exceeded amount authorized by surety's contract, surety could not be made liable by bank's offer to accept less.-Commercial Nat. Bank of Washington v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. of America, 10 F.(2d) 641. IV. REMEDIES OF CREDITORS. 155 (App.D.C.) Declaration in action against surety on contract guaranteeing advances to motor company held demurrable.Commercial Nat. Bank of Washington v. Lon |