for the use of a patent or copyright, such as a license, 16 although an injunction against the manufacture of articles covered by the patent is prayed incidentally; 17 do not arise under the laws of the United States, unless the validity of the patents and copyrights are disputed. On a bill in the State court by the equitable assignee of a patent right, under an agreement executed many months before the patent was applied for, against the subsequent assignee of the patent after it was issued, to compel an assignment to complainant, defendant obtained a removal on a petition averring that it was an assignee for a valuable consideration and without notice, and invoking for his protection U. S. R. S. § 4898; the complainant's agreement not having been recorded. It was held, on motion

to remand, that Section 4898 was designed for the protection. of bona fide purchasers, and that the question of the construetion, application, and enforcement of this statute in their favor, es against a prior equitable assignee, was a Federal question; and the motion was denied.18

An action on a judgment obtained in a patent suit for damages and profits, does not arise under the laws of the United States, 19 although the defendants are the directors of an insolvent corporation, who were not parties to the original suit.20 The cases where jurisdiction will be maintained to grant other relief when the prayer for an injunction against the infringement of a patent or copyright is denied, are described in subsequent sections.21

242. But see St. Paul v. Starling, 127 U. S. 376, 32 L. ed. 251.

15a Marsh v. Nichols S. S. Co., 140 U. S. 344, 35 L. ed. 413. See Pratt v. Paris Gaslight & Coke Co., 168 U. S. 255, 42 L. ed. 458; see Indiana Mfg. Co. v. Nichols & Co., 190 Fed. 579; Beavers v. Spinks (Mississippi), 26 So., 930.

16 Wilson v. Sandford, 10 How. 99, 13 L. ed. 344; Hartell v. Tilghman, 99 U. S. 547, 25 L. ed. 357; Wade v. Lawder, 165 U. S. 624, 41 L. ed. 851; Standard D. Mfg. Co. v. Nat. Tooth Co., 95 Fed. 291; Kurtz v. Strauss, 100 Fed. 800; Mc

Mullen v. Bowers, C. C. A., 102 Fed. 494; Kurtz v. Straus, 106 Fed. 414, 45 C. C. A. 366; Cely v. Griffin, 113 Fed 981.

17 New Marshall Engine Co. v. Marshall Engine Co., 223 U. S. 473, 56 L. ed. 513; Lefkowitz v. Foster Hose Supporter Co., 161 Fed. 367.

18 American Solid Leather Button Co. v. Empire State Nail Co., 47 Fed. 741.

19 H. C. Cook Co. v. Beecher, 217 U. S. 497, 54 L. ed. 855; affirming 172 Fed. 166.

20 Ibid

21 Infra, 88 146, 150.

§ 30. Trademark cases. A suit to enjoin the imitation of a trademark does not arise under the laws of the United States, unless the bill shows that the trademark is duly registered, and that it is used on goods intended to be transported to a foreign country or to be used in lawful trade with an Indian tribe,1 or is used in trade among the several States. Where the bill shows this, no difference of citizenship is essential to the jurisdiction. Where the requisite difference of citizenship exists, the District Court may take jurisdiction, either originally or upon removal, of a bill to enjoin the infringement of any trademark, whether registered or not. A suit to restrain unfair competition trade, where the complainant seeks no protection for a registered trademark, does not present a Federal question.5 The cases where, when relief for the infringement of a trademark is denied, jurisdiction will be retained to enjoin unfair competition in trade are described in a subsequent section.6

§ 31. Land and mining cases. Where the plaintiff's pleading shows that the decision of the case depends upon the construction of the land or mining laws, the suit arises under the laws of the United States; and if the matter in dispute exceeds the jurisdictional amount, a District Court of the United States may take jurisdiction of the same, either originally,1 or upon

§ 30. Trademark Cases, 100 U. S. 82, 25 L. ed. 550; Ryder v. Holt, 128 U. S. 525, 32 L. ed. 529; Hutchinson, Pierce & Co. v. Loewy, 217 U. S. 457, 54 L. ed. 838; Bernstein v. Danwitz, 190 Fed. 604; Allen B. Wrisley Co. v. George E. Rouse S. Co., C. C. A., 90 Fed. 5, dismissing appeal 87 Fed. 589; Warner V. Searle & Hereth Co., 191 U. S. 195, 48 L. ed. 145. See §§ 148, 149, 279, infra.

2 Bernstein v. Danwitz, 190 Fed. 604.

3 Rossmann v. Garnier, C. C. A., 211 Fed. 401.

4 Edison v. Thomas A. Edison, Jr., Chemical Co., 128 Fed. 1013.

5 Burt v. Smith, C. C. A., 71 Fed. 161; Allen B. Wrisley Co. v. George

E. Rouse Soap Co., 90 Fed. 5, 32 C. C. A. 496; dismissing appeal 87 Fed. 589; Illinois Watch Co. v. Elgin Nat. W. Co., C. C. A., 94 Fed. 667; s. c., 179 U. S. 665, 677, 45 L. ed. 365, 382; A. Leschen & Sons Rope Co. v. Broderick & Bascom Rope Co., 134 Fed. 571, 67 C. C. A. 418.

6 Infra, § 148.

§ 31. 1 Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. Bell, 176 U. S. 321, 44 L. ed. 486; Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Soderberg, 188 U. S. 526, 47 L. ed. 575; affirming 104 Fed. 425, 43 C. C. A. 620; Cheesman v. Shreve, 37 Fed. 36; Jones v. Florida, C. & P. R. Co., 41 Fed. 70; Pierce v. Molliken, 78 Fed. 196; Evans v. Durango Land & Coal Co., 80 Fed. 433, 25

5

removal. It seems that this is always the case where the complaint shows that the validity of a land or mining patent is in dispute. An action of ejectment, or of trespass, or a bill to quiet title, where the plaintiff rests his title upon a land or mining patent of the United States, the validity of which defendant does not dispute; does not so arise, unless it involves the construction of the statute under which the patent was issued." Nor does a suit to set aside a land patent solely on account of fraud; nor a suit by a homestead entryman to secure his protection, while making the improvements required by the acts of Congress, from interference by parties who claim. the land under the Town Site Act, but whose claims have been rejected by the Secretary of the Interior; nor a suit by any entryman to protect his improvements and claim from waste.

8

C. C. A. 531; Gillis v. Downey, C.
C. A., 85 Fed. 483; Florida C. & P.
R. Co. v. Bell, C. C. A., 87 Fed. 369;
Linkswiler v. Schneider, 95 Fed.
203; Nevada Sierra Oil Co. v. Mil-
ler, 97 Fed. 681; Wallula Pac. Ry.
Co. v. Portland & S. Ry. Co., 154
Fed. 902.

2 Mitchell v. Smale, 140 U. S. 406, 35 L. ed. 442; Spokane Falls & No. Ry. Co. v. Ziegler, 167 U. S. 65, 42 L. ed. 79; Miller v. Wattier, 24 Fed. 49; Dunton v. Muth, 45 Fed. 390; Walker v. Richards, 55 Fed. 129; Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Town send, 62 Fed. 161; McCune v. Es sig, C. C. A., 122 Fed. 588; affirm ing 118 Fed. 273.

3 Mitchell v. Smale, 140 U. S. 406, 35 L. ed. 442; Florida Cent. & P. R. R. Co. v. Bell, 176 U. S. 321, 44 L. ed. 486; Pierce v. Molliken, 78 Fed. 196; McCune v. Essig, C. C. A., 122 Fed. 588; affirming 118 Fed. 273.

4 Bonin v. Gulf Company, 198 U. S. 115, 49 L. ed. 970; Los Angeles Farming & Milling Co. v. Hoff, 48 Fed. 340; Washington V. Island Lime Co., 117 Fed. 777.

5 In re Helena & L. Smelting & Reduction Co., 48 Fed. 609; Argo naut Min. Co. v. Kennedy Mining & Milling Co., 84 Fed. 1; Peabody Gold-Min. Co. v. Gold Hill Min. Co., 97 Fed. 657.

6 Hoadley v. City and County of San Francisco, 94 U. S. 4, 24 L. ed. 34.

7 Hopkins v. Walker, 244 U. S. 486; Lancaster v. Kathleen Oil Co., 241 U. S. 551; State ImprovementDevelopment Co. v. Leininger, 226 Fed. 884.

8 Holland v. Hyde, 41 Fed. 897. Contra, where the bill also alleged that the patent had been issued without a compliance with the statute as to notice or proofs, and without authority at law. Cates v. Producers' & Consumers' Oil Co., 96 Fed. 7.

9 Blackburn v. Portland G. M. Co., 175 U. S. 571, 44 L. ed. 276; Shoshone M. Co. v. Rutter, 177 U. S. 505, 44 L. ed. 864; Butler v. Shafer, 67 Fed. 161; King v. Lawson, 84 Fed. 209. But see Jones v. Florida, C. & P. R. Co., 41 Fed. 70.

66

and trespass by a defendant, who claims no right under a statute of the United States.10 Nor a suit in support of an adverse claim to land or mining patent under U. S. R. S. § 2326; unless its decision turns upon a disputed construction of the Federal Constitution, a treaty, or a Federal statute.11 Where prior decisions have so determined the rights of the parties that they are removed from controversy, it cannot be said that the construction of the statute is disputed.12 The questions of fact: as to what is a vein," "lode," or "ledge," and as to what is the top or apex of a vein or lode within the meaning of Sections 2320, 2322 and 2325 of the Revised Statutes of the United. States; and as to what are the boundaries mentioned in a mining patent or land grant; 14 or the boundaries of a State as prescribed by the act of Congress admitting it to the Union, when the construction of the statute is not in question; 15 or, it has been held, as to the priority of the location; 16 do not involve Federal questions. Questions as to what are the rights recognized by the local laws, rules, regulations, customs and decisions, which the statutes of the United States direct shall he enforced, do not, it has been held, arise under the Constitu

13

10 Blackburn v. Portland G. M. Co., 175 U. S. 571, 44 L. ed. 276; Shoshone M. Co. v. Rutter, 177 U. S. 505, 44 L. ed. 864; Larned v. Jenkins, 109 Fed. 100, 48 C. C. A. 252. These cases overruled a numher of previous decisions of the Circuit Courts to the contrary.

11 McGilvra v. Ross, 215 U. S. 70, 54 L. ed. 95. See Columbia Valley R. Co. v. Portland & S. Ry. Co., C. C. A., 162 Fed. 603, where the construction of a statute was involved.

12 Colorado Central Consol. Min Co. v. Turck, 150 U. S. 138, 37 L. ed. 1030; Blackburn v. Portland Gold Min. Co., 175 U. S. 571, 585, 44 L. ed. 276, 282; Blue Bird Min. Co. v. Largey, 49 Fed. 289; Montana Ore-Purchasing Co. v. Boston & M. C. C. & S. Min. Co., C. C. A., 85 Fed. 867.

13 Colorado Central Consol. Min. Co. y. Turck, 150 U. S. 138, 37 L. ed. 1030; Blackburn v. Portland Gold Min. Co., 175 U. S. 571, 585, 44 L. ed. 276, 282; Blue Bird Min. Co. v. Largey, 49 Fed. 289.

14 Robinson v. Anderson, 121 U. S. 522; Los Angeles Farming & Milling Co. v. Hoff, 48 Fed. 340; Joy v. St. Louis, 122 Fed. 524. Contra, Green v. Valley, 101 Fed. 882.

15 Joy v. St. Louis, 201 U. S. 332, 50 L. ed. 776. But see Moore v. McGuire, 205 U. S. 214, 51 L. ed. 776.

16 Wise v. Nixon, 76 Fed. 3; Dewey Min. Co. v. Miller, 96 Fed. 1; Peabody Gold Min. Co. v. Gold Hill Min. Co., 97 Fed. 657. Contra, Nevada Sierra Oil Co. v. Miller, 97 Fed. 681.

tion and laws of the United States.17 An allegation in a declaration of ejectment, that the plaintiff was ousted in violation of a specified treaty and of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, is insufficient to support the jurisdiction.18 Where the complaint charged a continuing trespass, demanding a lump sum as damages, the plaintiff claiming under a series of titles to the same land, the adjudication of one of which alone involved a Federal question, it was held, that the whole case might be removed. 19 Where the complaint showed that the controversy arose under the land laws of the United States, a Federal court of equity has entertained and determined all incidental questions between the respective parties arising out of their conflicting claims and granted an injunction and appoint a receiver.20

§ 32. Cases arising under the laws relating to navigable waters. It has been held: that cases arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States, where the plaintiff by his complaint asserts a right under the Federal Constitution and certain acts of Congress, to maintain a dock on a navigable stream; 1 where a suit is brought to enjoin an obstruction upon a navigable stream, such as a bridge,2 or a log boom,3 and the plaintiff claims that the same is forbidden by an act of Congress, or by a Federal official acting under lawful authority,5

17 Trafton v. Nougues, Fed. Cas. No. 14,134 (4 Sawyer, 178); Telluride Power Transmission Co. v. Rio Grande W. Ry. Co., 175 U. S. 639, 44 L. ed. 305; dismissing appeal 51 Pac. 146, 16 Utah, 125.

18 Filhiol v. Maurice, 185 U. S. 108, 46 L. ed. 827.

19 Evans v. Durango Land & Coal Co., 80 Fed. 433, 25 C. C. A. 531.

20 Nevada Sierra Oil Co. v. Miller, 97 Fed. 681; State Improvement-Development Co. v. Leininger, 226 Fed. 884. Where the bill prayed an injunction to restrain an officer of the United States from recording the cancellation of land selections and a decree directing a State officer to issue to the plaintiff plaintiff's patents for such lands.

$ 32. 1 Cummings v. Chicago, 188 U. S. 410, 47 L. ed. 525; Calumet Grain & Elevator Co. v. Chicago, 188 U. S. 431, 47 L. ed. 532; Kenyon v. Squire, 1 Wash. St. 9, 24 Pac. 28.

2 New Orleans M. & T. R. Co. v. Mississippi, 102 U. S. 135, 26 L. ed. 96; E. A. Chatfield Co. v. New Haven, 110 Fed. 788.

3 U. S. v. Bellingham Bay Boom Co., 176 U. S. 211, 44 L. ed. 437; reversing 81 Fed. 658, 26 C. C. A. 547.

4 U. S. v. Bellingham Bay Boom Co., 176 U. S. 211, 44 L. ed. 437; reversing 81 Fed. 658, 26 C. C. A. 547; where the statute permitted such a suit, when the obstruction was not affirmatively authorized by