صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

tizen of the right of suing in
a Circuit Court, on the ground
of his not being a citizen of
any particular state, there
ought to be very strong evi-
dence of his being a mere
wanderer, without a home.
Rabaud v. D'Wolf. 580

594

20. The averment of the citi-
zenship of the parties, to give
jurisdiction to a Circuit Court,
is a necessary averment, and
must be proved under the ge-
neral issue. Catlett v. Pacific
Insurance Company.
21. It is not necessary that a citi-
zen, removing from a territory
of the United States, or a state,
into another state, should ac-
quire all the rights of a citizen
of the state into which he re-
moves, by the laws of such
state. It is sufficient if he ac-
quire a domicil there. Yet
the declaration must aver that
he is a citizen of the state:
not sufficient to aver that he
is a resident. Difficulty of
understanding the term citi-
zen, as used in the constitu-
tion.
22. If one make such removal
with the avowed object of ac
quiring a right to sue in the
Circuit Courts, but with the
intention of a permanent resi-
dence, and not to return, it is
not a fraud upon the law. ib.
23. The District Courts have a
general Admiralty jurisdiction
in suits by material men in
rem. In cases of foreign ships,
or ships of another state, the
maritime law gives the lien.
But in cases of domestic ships,
no lien is implied; but if the

ib.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

invention be matter of fact to
be left to the jury, or whether
the Court are to decide it as
matter of law? Quere. ib.
3. But, it seems, that if on the
plaintiff's own showing, the in-
vention appears to be useless,
and an imposition on the pub-
lic, the Court should so direct
the jury.
*ib.
4. An invention of an ornamen-
tal mode of putting up thread,
which gave it no additional va-
lue, but merely made it sell
more readily at retail, and for
a larger price, was held not
useful, within the meaning of
the patent law.
ib.
5. Specification held bad for un-
certainty.
ib.
6. A patent, under the law of
1793, is valid, although the
invention may have been in
use for years anterior to the
patent, if the patentee was the
original inventor. Goodyear v.
Mathews.
7. A patent for an entire ma-
chine is valid, although the
invention consists only of an
improvement on such ma-
chine; but the patentee is en-
titled to an exclusive use of no
more than his improvement. ib.
8. The first section of the pa-
tent law of 1793, construed in
connexion with the other sec-
tions of the act, means that the
invention should not be known
or used as the invention of any
other person than the paten-
tee before the application for
a patent. Morris v. Hunting-

9.

ton.

300

348

If the invention have got into
use while the inventor was
practising upon it with a view

to improve it before applying
for a patent, such use does not
invalidate the patent; and the
motive for the delay is a ques-
tion for the jury.
ib.
10. One who has patented his
invention cannot take out a
new patent for the same in-
vention, until the first is sur-
rendered, repealed, or de-
clared void..
ib.
11. The obstacle of an invalid
patent may be removed by
having it declared void after a
verdict against it, or by hav-
ing a vacatar entered ex parte
in the Department of State on
a surrender of the patent.
But the provisions of the 6th
section of the act, do not ena-
ble a patentee to declare his
own patent void, and a verdict
in a suit on the second patent
in favor of such patent, does
not avoid the first patent. ib.
12. It seems that on surrender-

ing a patent and taking out a
new one, the latter should
be for only the unexpired part
of the fourteen years since ob-
taining the first patent. ib.
13. Whether a new patent can
be taken out where a patent
has been declared void under
the 6th section of the act?
Quere.

14. On an application for an in-
junction to restrain the in-
fringement of a patent right, it
should be stated in the bill, or
by affidavit, that the com-
plainant is the inventor: and
the bill must be sworn to. It
is not sufficient that he swore
to this fact when he obtained
his patent. Sullivan v. Red-
field.

441

15. To obtain the injunction, the

case should be such as to leave
little if any doubt in the minds
of the Court, as to the validity
of the patent; especially if it
rests upon the complainant's
own showing without any op-
posing testimony.
ib.
16. The act of the 15th of Fe-
bruary, 1819, does not alter
the principles on which in-
junctions are granted, but
merely extends the jurisdic-
tion of the Circuit Courts to
parties not before falling with-
in it.
ib.
17. The established rules which
govern Courts of Equity, on
such applications are, that
where there has been an ex-
clusive possession of some du-
ration, under the patent, an in-
junction will be granted with-
out putting the party previous-
ly to establish the validity of
his patent at law. But where
the patent is recent, and it is
attempted to be shown that the
specification is bad, or other-
wise that the patent ought not
to have been granted, the
Court will not take the deci-
sion upon itself, but will send
the party to establish his pa-
tent at law.
ib.
18. A patent for an improvement
should describe the machine
in use, that it may be known
in what the improvement con-
sists.
ib.
19. One had patented, "a new

and useful improvement in the
steam tow-boat," but the spe-
cification did not mention the
invention as an improvement,
but simply described a tow-
boat: Held, that the specifi-

cation was broader than the
patent, and therefore bad.
ib.
20. The invention should be so
clearly described, as to enable
the public to put it in use. ib.
21. The specification described
the invention, as "consisting
essentially in attaching the
packet to the steam-boat, with
ropes, chains, or spars, so as
to communicate the power of
the engine from the towing
vessel to the vessel taken in
tow, and kept always at conve-
nient distance, the manner of
applying the power, varying
with the circumstances in some
measure:" held bad for un-
certainty, and as describing a
well known natural power, and
not an invention.

Vide JURISDICTION, 2-5.

PENALTIES.

Vide FORFEitures.

PLEADINGS.

ib.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

1.

CONDITION. Covenant. INSU-
RANCE. JURISDICTION, 20, 21,
22. PRACTICE, 7. SHIPS, 9.

PRACTICE.

The Common Law practice
of the State Courts, is not con-
sidered as the practice of the
Circuit Courts, except as it
existed at the passage of the
act of 1789, and so far as it has
since been adopted by rule.
Brewster v. Gelston. 426
Although the law of the state
requiring the Supreme Court
to decide on a bill of excep-
tions, before a writ of error
is brought, does not govern
the practice of this Court, yet
a bill of exceptions was re-

2.

ceived as a substitute for a case
on a motion for a new trial.
ib.

3. Where a party dies during
term, the judgment may be en-
tered in this Court as of a day
antecedent to his death. Gris-
wold v. Hill.
483
4. But there is this difference,
in this respect, between its
equity proceedings and those
of the English Court of Chan-
cery, that this Court is open
only during term, and a decree
cannot be entered if the death
occurred before the beginning
of the term.
ib.
5. Where an order for the dis-
missal of a bill was taken er
parte, the complainant having
avowed his intention not to
pursue the cause any further,
on a motion to vacate the or-
der, on the ground that the de-
fendant died before it was en-
tered; held, that it was not
distinguishable, in principle,
from the case of death after
argument,but before judgment,
and that the order might be en-
tered antecedent to the death.
ib.

6. There is no practice in this
Court of service of papers upon
the agent of an attorney, as in
the Supreme Court of the
state. Smith v. Jackson. 486
7. In an action of scire facias,
there was no declaration, but
the writ of seire facias was de-
murred to: Held, that the le-
gal effect was the same as if
the demurrer had been to the
declaration, and the same judg-
ment was ordered to be enter-
ed. People of Vermont v. So-

[blocks in formation]

1. The defendant had sold the
complainant a bill of exchange
on a house in London, and re-
ceived the complainant's note
for the price, but kept the bill
by agreement, as security for
its payment. The bill was
protested, the drawers became
bankrupt, and dividends were
declared upon their estates.
The defendant refused to re-
turn the bill to the complain-
ant, but made no effort to re-
cover the amount or to obtain
the dividends. He was held
liable for any loss that might
have happened by such negli-
gence. Childs v. Corp
Where an agent of the War
Department was empowered
to make a contract, which re-
served no right of ratification
to the Secretary, it was held
complete and binding without
such ratification. United States
v. Tillotson.

2.

285

305

[blocks in formation]
« السابقةمتابعة »