Arkansas.

(B.) STATUTES OF THE STATES AND TERRITORIES.

1907, Laws of 1907, Act

PAGE

PAGE

Kentucky (cont.).

61..

358

California.

§§ 199, 200...
1886, April 3, Laws of
1885-1886, c. 511,

.659, 662

Const., Art. XI, § 19, as
amended Oct. 10, 1911 342
§ 11..

p. 1174...

650

1902, March 21, Stat.

343

Civil Code, §536.343, 344, 345
§ 1384.

1909, § 556..
1903, Stat. 1903, § 496

651

562

265, 267

1582.

563

1905, March 20, amend

ing § 536 of Civil Code 344

Colorado.

Louisiana.

Code, § 62.

106

Idaho.

Const., Art. III, § 15... 121
Art. XIV, §3.

122

Rev. Stat., § 2712.

150

637, 639, 6-10

§ 3155.

122

Massachusetts.

$3184.

123

1818, Feb. 23, Stat. 1817,

Rev. Code, 1910, § 2840

150

1903, March 11, Laws of

1898, March 8, Laws of

1898, c. 49, p. 33.... 609

Code, § 2071.

609

Kentucky.

163, 164.

Const. of 1891, §§ 156,

223.

122

Minnesota.

c. 176; Laws of 18151818, pp. 602, 603.627, 628 1887, Stat. 1887, c. 435, § 1.

Const., Art. X, § 3..... 253 1899, April 18, Gen.

Laws of 1899, c. 272,

p. 315...

659

254, 257,

258,259,260

623

CASES ADJUDGED

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

AT

OCTOBER TERM, 1911.

HENRY v. A. B. DICK COMPANY.1

ON A CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.

No. 20. Argued October 27, 1911.-Decided March 11, 1912.

Complainant sold his patented machine embodying the invention claimed and described in the patent, and attached to the machine a license restriction that it only be used in connection with certain unpatented articles made by the vendor of the machine; with the knowledge of such license agreement and with the expectation that it would be used in connection with the said machine, defendant sold to the vendee of the machine an unpatented article of the class

This case was argued after the death of Mr. Justice Harlan, and during the absence of Mr. Justice Day (see p. v ante). The opinion of the court was delivered by Mr. Justice Lurton (see p. 11 post), with whom Mr. Justice McKenna, Mr. Justice Holmes and Mr. Justice Van Devanter concurred; a dissenting opinion was delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White (see p. 49 post,), with whom Mr. Justice Hughes and Mr. Justice Lamar concurred. After the opinion was delivered, the plaintiff in error asked leave to file a petition for rehearing, and The Attorney General and The Solicitor General filed an application and brief on behalf of the United States for leave to intervene and for a rehearing of the cause; both applications were denied.

VOL. CCXXIV-1

(1)