Page images
PDF
EPUB

requirement has been adjudged against him, he has failed to make a case for us to consider. The motion to dismiss is granted.

Mr. Thomas J. Durant and Mr. Charles W. Hornor for the motion.

Mr. Thomas J. Semmes opposing.

HEARST v. HALLIGAN.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI.

No. 6. Submitted November 14, 1881.- Decided December 5, 1881.

Affirmed on the facts.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the court.

A very thorough examination of the record and the printed arguments in this case fails to disclose any difficult question of fact or of law. We are entirely satisfied with the conclusions reached by the Circuit Judge, and with the reasons given in support thereof. All the relief to which the appellant was entitled, under the evidence, was accorded to him by the final decree. We are not sure but that the court might have gone farther, and adjudged that, as to a material portion of appellant's cause of action, the statute of limitations of Missouri constituted a complete defence.

No further opinion will be delivered. The decree is affirmed. Mr. Jacob Klein, Mr. Samuel Knox and Mr. W. M. Stewart for appellant.

Mr. T. W. B. Crews for appellees.

PRICE v. KELLY.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA.

No. 13. Submitted October 12, 1881. Decided October 25, 1881.

Affirmed on the facts.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court. This case is very imperfectly presented. No one appears for the appellee, and the record is incomplete. The bill charges the appellee with an infringement of certain letters patent issued to and owned by the appellant. The answer attacks the validity of the patent, and denies the infringement. The court below, with

out passing on the other questions, held there was no infringe. ment. The appellee evidently claimed under a patent to himself, which, with the accompanying drawings and certain models, was in evidence. This evidence is not before us. Neither the patent nor the drawings are in the record, and the models have not been brought up. Nor have we been able to find anywhere in the record a satisfactory description of the structure which the appellee The burden of proving the infringement is on the appellant. The necessary proof in this respect has not been made, and the decree below is consequently

uses.

Affirmed.

Mr. J. J. Noah and Mr. C. K. Davis for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

ROBERTS v. BOLLES.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.

No. 48.

Roberts v. Bolles, 101 U. S. 119, followed.

Submitted October 20, 1881. Decided October 25, 1881.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court. The judgment in this case is affirmed on the authority of Roberts v. Bolles, 101 U. S. 119, which we see no reason for reconsidering.

Affirmed.

Mr. Andrew J. Bell for plaintiff in error.

Mr. George O. Ide for defendants in error.

GLOVER v. LOVE.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI.

No. 62. Submitted October 28, 1881.- Decided November 7, 1881. Affirmed on the facts.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court. We have carefully examined all the testimony in this case, and are satisfied with the decree below. It is abundantly proven that the stock which the assignee in bankruptcy now seeks to reach, never was in equity the property of the bankrupt. Unless all the testimony is to be disbelieved, the original purchases were made honestly and in good faith with the proceeds of the separate

estate of the wife, and years before the bankrupt became involved in the liabilities which caused his failure.

The decree is affirmed. Mr. John R. Shepley and Mr. S. T. Glover for plaintiff in error. Mr. J. E. McKeighan for defendants in error.

LEVY V. DANGEL.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT

OF

THE TERRITORY

OF IDAHO.

No. 72. Submitted November 4, 1881. – Decided November 14, 1881. Railway Co. v. Heck, 102 U. S. 120, followed.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.

The judgment in this case is affirmed. The demurrer to the complaint was properly overruled, and we cannot consider the questions presented on the motion for a new trial. Railway Co. v. Heck, 102 U. S. 120.

Mr. Fillmore Beul for plaintiff in error.
Mr. George Ainslie for defendant in error.

CONTINENTAL BANK NOTE CO. v. UNITED STATES.

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS.

No. 216. Argued March 6 and 7, 1882. Decided March 20, 1882. A contract with the United States for the delivery of postage stamps to it

construed. Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellant by its several contracts sued on was bound to furnish the Post-office Department all the adhesive postage stamps that might be required during a period ending on the 30th day of April, 1877. As part of the several contracts, also, it bound itself to keep on hand at all times a stock of the several denominations of stamps sufficient to meet all the orders of the Department, and to provide against any and all contingencies likely to occur, so that each and every order might be promptly filled. For this the United States agreed to pay at the stipulated prices for all stamps delivered, and by express stipulation this was to be “full compensation for everything required to be done or furnished under” the contracts. Deliveries were to be made at the postoffice in New York, or the Department in Washington. From this it is apparent there was no liability on the part of the United States to pay until — 1, there liad been a requisition by the Department; and 2, a delivery in conformity with what was required. The contracts were limited to a fixed period. The United States were neither bound to order nor the appellant to deliver after the end of the term. Although the stock on hand was manufactured and stored under the supervision of an agent of the Department, it remained the property of the appellant until delivered under the contracts. The inspection and supervision of the agent during the manufacture and storage were to guard against losses and frauds, and to insure promptness in delivery. The ownership was not changed until the delivery which the contracts provided for was complete. If loss occurred by reason of the failure of the United States to call for the whole stock on hand before the end of the term, it was compensated for in the payment for what was delivered. Such was the express agreement of the parties.

The judgment is affirmed. Mr. John R. Dos Passos and Mr. William McMichael for appellant.

Mr. Attorney General and Mr. Solicitor General for appellee.

BONNIFIELD V. PRICE.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF WYOMING.

No. 230.

Submitted March 16, 1882. - Decided March 27, 1882.

Hecht v. Boughton, 105 U. S. 235, followed.

MR. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error to bring here for review a judgment of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Wyoming in a case where the trial was not by jury. It is therefore dismissed on the authority of Hecht v. Boughton, 105 U. S. 235, decided at the present term. The appropriate remedy in this case, under the act of April 7, 1874, ch. 80, Sup. Rev. Stat. 12, was by appeal.

But if we could treat this writ of error as an appeal, the case is in no condition for examination here, because there is no such statement of facts in the record as the law requires. The bill of exceptions taken in the District Court contains all the evidence, and as the Supreme Court directed a judgment in favor of the defendant, it is clear that court passed on other questions than such as were presented on the rulings in the admission of evidence. Under these circumstances a statement of facts such as

case.

the statute requires is necessary to enable us to reëxamine the

The writ is dismissed. Mr. John W. Hammond, Mr. C. N. Potter and Mr. E. P. Johnson for plaintiff in error.

Mr. George F. Price for defendant in error.

MELLON V. DELAWARE, LACKAWANNA AND

WESTERN RAILROAD CO.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR

THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.

No. 244. Submitted March 24, 1882. – Decided April 3, 1882.
The burden of proving this case is on the appellant, but the weight of the

evidence is with the appellee.
MR. JUSTICE Woods delivered the opinion of the court.

The bill charged infringement of letters patent, dated October 2, 1866, granted to Edward Mellon, one of the complainants, for an improvement in the mode of attaching tires to wheels of locomotives. Mellon had assigned a one-half interest in his letters patent to William Matthews and they two were joined as complainants.

The defendant pleaded that while Mellon was the sole owner of the patent, to wit: on May 15, 1867, he had, for a valuable consideration granted a license in writing to the defendant for the full term of the patent to use the improvement described therein upon all its locomotives, locomotive tires and wheels.

The complainants took issue on this plea. The Circuit Court heard the cause upon the pleadings and evidence and dismissed the bill. The appeal of the complainants has brought up the case for our consideration.

To support the issue on its part the defendant produced a license in writing, signed and sealed by Mellon, dated May 15, 1867, which, its execution being admitted by Mellon, proved every allegation of the plea.

The appellants asserted, however, that the license had been delivered as an escrow to John Brisbin, the president of the appellee, in order that he might present it at the next meeting of the board of directors of the company, and if the board consented to pay and did pay thirty-five hundred dollars for the license, it was to take effect, otherwise not; and that nothing whatever had been paid for it. The appellee denied this, and asserted that the lelivery was upon a valuable consideration received by Mellon, was

VOL. CLIV-43

« PreviousContinue »