Category: 1 F. ___

SEARCY & SCHUSTER v. MCCHORD, Assignee, etc. District Court, D. Kentucky. March 4, 1880. SALE?MISTAKE?ASSIGNEE IN BANKRUPTCY.?A court of equity will set aside a sale by an assignee in bankruptcy where the purchaser has been innocently misled by the advertised notice of the sale. In equity. Bill and cross-bill for specific performance. The bankrupt, Hardesty, […]

DANIEL DALSTROM and others v. THE OUTFIT OF THE SCHOONER ?E. M. DAVIDSON.? District Court, E. D. Wisconsin. January term, 1880. WAGES?SALVAGE?CONFLICTING CLAIMS.? Under the circumstances of this case it was held that the wages earned by seamen after their vessel had been wrecked, but before she was finally abandoned, did not constitute antecedent wages […]

MILLBANK v. THE SCHOONER ?A. P. CRANMER? and others. District Court, E. D. New York. January 24, 1880. COLLISION?STEAM VESSEL AND SAILING VESSEL.?RULE 20, REV. ST. ? 4233.?Rule 20, Rev. St. ? 4233, that a steam vessel should keep out of the way of a sailing vessel does not apply to a tow composed of […]

FRICK v. THE COUNTY OF CHRISTIAN. Circuit Court, D. Kentucky. March 4, 1880. AWARD?COUNTY COMMISSIONERS?RATIFICATION.?An award will not be vacated for want of authority in the county commissioners to make the submission at the instance of a party to the arbitration, when such award has been approved by the county court and the money paid […]

IN THE MATTER OF PETER HERDIC, Bankrupt. District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania. February 14, 1880. BANKRUPTCY?OPPOSITION TO DISCHARGE OF BANKRUPT?BURDEN OF PROOF.?Although suspicious circumstances may in certain cases be sufficient to authorize a court to find the concealment or fraudulent appropriation of money by a bankrupt, yet it is well settled that the burdent of […]

WOOD & Co. v. THE PH?NIX INSURANCE Co.* District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania, March 23, 1880. GOODS CARRIED ON DECK?GENERAL AVERAGE?EXCEPTION?CUSTOM?BURDEN OF PROOF.?The general rule is that goods carried on deck are not entitled to the benefit of general average. To this rule there are the following exceptions:First, where the goods are carried on deck […]

WERTHEIMER and another v. THE PENNSYLANIA RAILROAD COMPANY. Circuit Court, S. D. New York. January 23, 1880. BILL OF LADING?COMMON CARRIER?SHIPPER.?The acceptance of a bill of lading binds the shipper and precludes him from alleging ignorance of its terms. SAME?NEGLIGENCE?BURDEN OF PROOF.?Where loss arose through one of the excepted causes contained in the bill of […]

HALL v. THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY. Circuit Court, W. D. Pennsylvania. January 23, 1880. COMMON CARBIER?BILL OF LADING?LIMITATION OF LIABILITY?GOODS BURNED BY A MOB.?An exception in a bill of lading exempting a common carrier from liability for ?loss or damage on any article or property whatever, by fire or other casualty, while in transit, or […]

WASHBURN & MOEN MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. COLWELL STEEL BARB FENCE COMPANY and others. WASHBURN & MOEN MANUFACTURING COMPANY and another v. COLWELL STEEL BARB FENCE COMPANY and others. SAME v. SAME. Circuit Court, D. Connecticut. March 18, 1880. Motion to vacate or modify decrees obtained in the above suits by the Iowa Bard Steel Wire […]

WOVEN WIRE MATTRESS COMPANY v. WIRE WEB BED COMPANY. Circuit Court, D. Connecticut. March 18, 1880. Injunction for violation of patent. SHIPMAN, J. This is an application for a temporary injunction to restrain an alleged violation of reissued letters patent. 223 dated May 29, 1877, for an improvement in bedstead frames. The original patent was […]

RUPPEL & MCKINLEY v. PATTERSON and others. Circuit Court, W. D. Pennsylvania. March 5, 1880. LEASEHOLD?ASSIGNOR AND ASSIGNEE? RES ADJUDICATA.?Questions determined by a court of competent jurisdiction in a suit against the assignor of a lease, for rent accruing subsequent to the assignment, cannot be reconsidered in a suit by the assignor against the assignee […]

THE MONONGAHELA NAVIGATION Co. v. THE STEAM TUG ?BOB CONNELL? and others. Circuit Court, W. D. Pennsylvania. March 5, 1880. ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION?LOCKAGE.?A claim for lockage in a public navigable river is cognizable by a court of admiralty. LIEN?SERVICE IN HOME PORT.?A lien for lockage will not arise where the services were rendered to the vessel […]

In re WELGE. District Court, E. D. Missouri. ??? 1880. BANKRUPTCY?ASSIGNEE?ALLOWANCE FOR SERVICES AS ATTORNEY.?The court in its discretion can allow an assignee in bankruptcy additional compensation for his services as an attorney at law in the conduct of necessary litigation for the preservation of the bankrupt estate. Motion to set aside extra allowance to […]

UNITED STATES v. BIEBUSCH. Circuit Court, E. D. Missouri. ???. PRACTICE?RULINGS OF DISTRICT JUDGE WHEN HOLDING THE CIRCUIT COURT?WHEN REVIEWABLE BY CIRCUIT JUDGE.? It is well settled in the eighth circuit that the rulings of the district judge, while holding the circuit court, are not subject to review in the same court, by the circuit […]

LEVI v. COLUMBIA LIFE INS. Co. Circuit Court, E. D. Missouri. ??? 1880. JURISDICTION?EXECUTION?JUDGMENT IN FEDERAL COURT ? PROPERTY IN CUSTODY OF STATE COURT.?Where, under the ?Insurance Act? of the state of Missouri, proceedings have been instituted in the state court against an insurance company, which finally result in the dissolution and administration of the […]

LIGGETT & MYERS TOBACCO Co. v. MILLER and others. Circuit Court, E. D. Missouri. March term, 1880. PATENT?INTERFERING PATENTS?SERVICE OF NOTICE OUTSIDE OF DISTRICT.?In proceedings for relief against the owners of an interfering patent, under section 4918 of the Revised Statutes, no provision is made for the service of notice upon parties outside of the […]

HATHAWAY and others v ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INS. Co. Circuit Court, E. D. Missouri. ???, 1880. MARINE INSURANCE?GOVERNMENT VESSEL?UNLICENSED PILOT?SEAWORTHINESS.?The mere fact that the officers navigating a government vessel are not licensed pilots, does not prima facie render a vessel unseaworthy under the warranties of marine insurance. J. Chandler and J. P. Ellis, […]

MACK and others v. LANCASHIRE INS. Co. Circuit Court, E. D. Missouri. ???, 1880. PLEADING?ANSWER?GENERAL DENIAL.?Under the rules of pleading established by the state of Missouri, as modified by the act of 1875. affirmative matters of defence cannot be set up under a general denial. Demurrer to answer. Noble & Orrick, for plaintiffs. O. B. […]

THE FIFTH NATIONAL BANK OF PITTSBURGH v. THE PITTSBURGH & CASTLE SHANNON RAILROAD Co. District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania. February 18, 1880. STOCKHOLDERS?BOARD OF DIRECTORS?PETITION?RECEIVER.?The stockholders of a defendant corporation cannot obtain the removal of a receiver by petition, where it appears from the pleadings that such corporation has a regularly elected board of directors, […]

THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF UNIONTOWN v. STAUFFER. Circuit Court, W. D. Pennsylvania. February 13, 1880. NATIONAL BANK?USURY?REV. ST. ? 5198.?The receipt by a national bank of an usurious rate of interest upon the discount of a note works a forfeiture of such interest as would otherwise have accrued after the maturity of the note. […]

VON LINGEN and others v. DAVIDSON and others. DAVIDSON and others v. VON LINGEN and others. District Court, D. Maryland. March 6, 1880. CHARTER PARTY??ABOUT TO SAIL.??The words ?about to sail from Benizaf with cargo for Philadelphia,? contained in a charter-party, held to mean, under the circumstances of this case, to sail as soon as […]

TOOHEY v HARDING. Circuit Court, D. Maryland. February 28, 1880. INVENTION?CLAIM?PATENT.?A patent only protects that part of an invention which the patentee sets out in his claim. CONFLICTING INVENTIONS?COMMON PURPOSE OF TWO INVENTIONS.?The manufacture of a machine in accordance with a patent, without infringement of the claim of another patentee, cannot be restrained, although the […]

In re STERLING, AHRENS & CO. District Court, D. Maryland. January 3, 1880. ACCOMMODATION NOTES?VENDOR AND VENDEE?Notes made by a vendee in excess of the value of the goods, and before the same have been delivered, for the convenience of the vendor, are accommodation notes, and the vendor is primarily liable for the same. SAME?BANKRUPTCY?CLAIMS?DIVIDENDS.?The […]

HEERMAN v. BEEF SLOUGH MANUFACTURING, ETC., CO. and others. Circuit Court, W. D. Wisconsin. ???. NAVIGABLE STREAM?USE AS A PUBLIC HIGHWAY?OBSTRUCTIONS TO STEAMBOAT NAVIGATION.?Where a river lies wholly within the territory of a single state, and certain piers and booms have been erected in that river by a private corporation, under the authority of the […]

GREEN v. GORDON and others. Circuit Court D. Massachusetts. January 30, 1880. TRUSTEES?ACTION AT LAW UPON AN AGREEMENT TO ACCOUNT.?Trustees cannot he charged in assumpsit or trover with the ?carnings? of an estate for a specific period, under an agreement to account for the same This was an action of contract, to which the defendants […]

CROWELL v. NATHANIEL E. HARLOW. CROWELL v. GEORGE HARLOW. Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts. January 17, 1880. INVENTION?IMPROVED PROCESS OF CURING FISH.?An improvement in the process of curing fish by the removal of the mucous membrane is patentable, when it was not formerly known that such membrane was injurious to the keeping quality of the fish. […]

TINKER v. WILBER EUREKA MOWER & REAPER MANUFACTURING COMPANY. Circuit Court, S. D. New York. January 20, 1880. INVENTION?SPECIFICATION?DRAWING.?In a suit upon a patent a drawing can be looked at, if necessary in order to explain an ambiguous or doubtful specification, but cannot be made to supply the entire want of any part of a […]

THE STEAMSHIP UNITED STATES. JOSLYN v. NICKERSON. Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts. February 9, 1880. PILOTAGE?CERTIFICATE OF LICENSE.?Certificate of master of steamer construed, and held that intent to authorize him to act as pilot, under Rev. St. ? 4443, was sufficiently expressed. SAME?LICENSE BY INSPECTORS OF THE UNITED STATES.?Inspectors of the Untied States have authority to […]

FARWELL v. BROWN. Circuit Court, W. D. Wisconsin. February 13, 1880. ATTACHMENT?PREFERENCE OF CREDITORS.?The preference of a bona fide creditor does not authorize the issuing of an attachment upon the ground that the defendant has disposed of his property with the intent of defrauding his creditors. BUNN, J. This case comes up on a traverse […]

EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES v. CHARLES G. PATTERSON and others. Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts. February 7, 1880. BILL IN EQUITY?INFANTS.?Infants are necessary parties to a bill in equity to set aside a policy of insurance, when they have a contingent interest in such policy. SAME?MULTIFARIOUSNESS.?The joinder of a prayer in such […]

SAXONVILLE MILLS v. RUSSELL. Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts. January 7, 1880. REVENUE?DUTY ON WOOL?PRESUMPTION AS TO ?INVOICE VALUE.??It will be presumed, in the absence of testimony, that where an importation of wool was appraised at its ?invoice value,? such appraisment did not include the charges upon the wool at the port of exportation, when the […]

KEYSTONE BRIDGE COMPANY v. BRITTON. Circuit Court, S. D. New York. January 20, 1880. CONTRACT?RECEIPT?EVIDENCE.?Where, upon sufficient consideration, a statement is written across the face of a note by the party signing such statement, to the effect that funds have been placed in his hands, as trustee, for the payment of such note at maturity, […]

GILBERT v. QUIMBY and others. Circuit Court, S. D. New York. January 20, 1880. BANKRUPTCY?ATTACHMENT OF DIVIDEND?EQUITABLE RELIEF.?A bill in equity will not lie in favor of a partnership creditor, to restrain the application of a dividend in the hands of an assignee in bankruptcy to the debt of an individual creditor, where both of […]

THE UNITED STATES v. MCCARTNEY and others. Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts. January 16, 1880. COLLECTION OF INTERNAL REVENUE?OFFICIAL BOND?SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATION.?The official bond of a collector of internal revenue is applicable to the payment of certain store-keepers, under an act of congress providing for the appointment and payment of such store-keepers, enacted subsequently to the execution […]

THE UNITED STATES v. THE PACIFIC RAILROAD and others. Circuit Court, E. D. Missouri. March 13, 1880. INCOME TAX?DEMAND?LIEN?TIME IT ATTACHES?PROPERTY IT ATTACHES.?The lien of the income tax (Act July 13, 1866, 14 St. at Large, 107; Rev. St. 3186) relates back, upon demand, to the time when the tax was due, but only attaches […]

HAYDEN v. THE ANDROSCOGGIN MILLS. HAYDEN v. THE BATES MANUFACTURING COMPANY. Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts. November 20, 1879. FOREIGN CORPORATION?JURISDICTION.?A foreign trading corporation may be sued in the circuit court for the district of Massachusetts, although the property of the defendant has not been attached, where such corporation is doing business within the state, and […]

KEROSENE LAMP HEATER COMPANY v. FISHER. Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts. January 20, 1880. PATENT CASE?PRACTICE.?Modes of proceeding before a master to whom a patent case has been referred. LOWELL, J. Some questions are raised relating to the modes of proceeding before a master to whom a patent case has been referred, in certain particulars in […]

PHALON v. THE HADJI. District Court, E. D. New York. January 5, 1880. ADMIRALTY?NEGLIGENCE.?It is not negligence to cover the lower deck beams of a steamer with loose planks, for the purpose of stowage, when the party injured has notice of the manner in which they are placed, and uses the same without any necessity. […]

THE AMERICAN WHIP Co. v. THE HAMPDEN WHIP Co. and others. Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts. February 2, 1880. INVENTION?WHIP TIP INDEPENDENT OF STOCK.?A whip tip, made independent of the stock, to which it may be fitted by means of a socket, is not alone such an improvement as may be patented. LOWELL, J. Clark R. […]

PARSONS, Assignee, etc., v. CASWELL and others. Circuit Court, E. D. Wisconsin. January 5, 1880. BANKRUPT LAW ? UNLAWFUL PREFERENCE OF CREDITOR.? Although, under a sound construction of the bankrupt law, mere passive non-resistance by the insolvent debtor will not defeat a judgment and levy where the debt was due and there was no defence […]

FRIEMANSDORF v. WATERTOWN INSURANCE Co. Circuit Court, N. D. Illinois. November 21, 1879. FIRE INSURANCE?MORTGAGOR AND MORTGAGEE?PARTY TO SUIT.?In an action upon a policy of insurance on mortgaged premises, the mortgagee is not a proper party plaintiff, where the policy was issued to the mortgagor, although made payable to the mortgagee. BREACH OF CONDITIONS.?Any breach […]

THE SVEND. RICHARDS and others v. HANSEN. Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts. November 24, 1879. COMMON CARRIERS BY WATER?EXCEPTIONS IN BILL OF LADING.?Exceptions in a bill of lading against breakage, leakage and rust, as well as the perils of the sea, do not relieve a carrier from liability where a cargo of from was injured by […]

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GOGGIN. Circuit Court, E. D. Wisconsin. January 5, 1880. INDICTMENT?FRAUD, HOW ALLEGED.?An indictment charging fraud should aver the fraud with sufficient particularity to enable the defendent to prepare his defence, and plead the judgment as a bar to a subsequent prosecution. G. W. Hazelton, U. S. Dist. Att?y, for […]

HEWAT v. HAVEMYER. District Court, E. D. New York. ???, 1880. DAMAGES TO CARGO?DRAINAGE OF SUGAR?FREIGHT.?Where a cargo of sugar was brought from Havana to New York in bags, and the consignees refused to pay the freight, alleging damage to the sugar by reason of bad storage, and careless delivery, to the amount of $1,100, […]

THE ST. LOUIS NAT. BK. v. BRINKMAN. Circuit Court, D. Kansas. January 7, 1880. NATIONAL BANKS?JURISDICTION.?National banks are not authorized to institute suits in the federal courts out of the districts where they are established, when the amount in controversy does not exceed $500. Sterry & Sedgwick, for plaintiff. Gardiner Lathrop, for defendant. FOSTER, J. […]

THE EMMA SILVER MINING CO. (Limited) v. THE EMMA SILVER MINING Co. OF N. Y. and others. Circuit Court, S. D. New York. January 14, 1880. PRACTICE?PLEAS?REFERENCE.? Where judgments are pleaded in bar, the court on motion may refer the pleas to a master to ascertain the truth of the same. E. W. Stoughton, for […]

SAWYER v. HORN. Circuit Court, D. Maryland. January 17, 1880. TRADE-MARK?FRAUD?INJUNCTION.?A court of equity will restrain the fraudulent imitation of a package and label, although they do not technically constitute a trade-mark, where the public are thereby misled into purchasing the goods of the imitator as those of the original manufacturer. 25 MORRIS, J. The […]