of timber falling from above him where other men had been put
to work; even if the employé had knowledge of such overhead
work, the duty of the employer to provide a reasonably safe place
to work remained. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Howell, 577.
2. Disease as result of; remoteness of development.
Where the injury actually caused the disease, the injured party may
recover even if the disease does not immediately develop; and in
this case held, that the jury were warranted in finding that Potts
disease with which defendant in error was afflicted was the direct
cause of the injury, although it did not develop for over a year. Ib.
3. Res ipsa loquitur; doctrine defined.
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is that when a thing which causes
injury, without fault of the person injured, is shown to be under
the exclusive control of defendant, and would not cause the dam-
age in ordinary course if the party in control used proper care, it
affords reasonable evidence, in absence of an explanation, that
the injury arose from defendant's want of care. San Juan Light
& Transit Co. v. Requena, 89.
4. Res ipsa loquitur; application of doctrine.
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was rightly applied against defendant
electric light company in the case of a person injured while ad-
justing an electric light in his residence by an electric shock trans-
mitted from the outside wires of the defendant company entirely
without fault on his part and in manner which could not have
happened had such outside wires been in proper condition. Ib.
See STATES, 1, 2.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 11, 13, 19, 20;
RAILROADS, 5.
See PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 6, 7, 8, 9.
Intentional violation of statute; what constitutes.
There is, in effect, an intentional violation of a statute when one de-
liberately refuses to examine that which it is his duty to examine.
Thomas v. Taylor, 73.
OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES
See PATENTS, 2, 3, 12, 13;
PUBLIC OFFICERS.
OKLAHOMA.
See INDIANS, 9, 14.
ONUS PROBANDI.
See BONDS, 1;
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION;
RAILROADS, 5.
1. Contract for use; when implied.
In order to find that there was an implied contract for use of a patent,
there must be use with patentee's assent and agreement to pay
something therefor, United States v. Berdan Fire Arms Company,
156 U. S. 552, and these elements may be collected from conduct
of the parties, even if there are no explicit declarations. United
States v. Anciens Etablissements, 309.
2. Contract for use; what constitutes; jurisdiction of Court of Claims.
Where the facts show that the patentee consented that the Govern-
ment use his invention, and the proper officers of the Department
in which it was used have stated that there is a claim for royalties
if the patent is a valid one, the claim is founded on contract and
the Court of Claims has jurisdiction. Ib.
3. Eminent domain in: remedy of patentee.
The act of June 25, 1910, having afforded a remedy for a patentee
whose property rights have been appropriated by an officer of the
United States for the benefit of the Government, such patentee is
entitled to maintain an action in the Court of Claims to have his
compensation determined, and the statute makes full and ade-
quate provisions for the exercise of power of eminent domain.
Crozier v. Krupp, 290.
4. Excellence of device; use as test.
The excellence of an ordnance invention is testified to by its use by
the Government in guns for the national defense. United States
v. Anciens Etablissements, 309.
5. Exclusive use; right of patentee to.
A patentee may exclude others from the use of his invention although
he does not use it himself. (The Paper Bag Patent Case, 210
U. S. 405.) Henry v. A. B. Dick Co., 1.
6. Infringement; contributory; license restrictions.
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, de-
fendant sold to the vendee of the machine an unpatented article
of the class described in the license restriction. Held that the act
of defendant constituted contributory infringement of com-
plainant's patent. Ib.
7. Infringement; election of remedies.
A patentee may elect to sue his licensee upon the broken contract, or
for forfeiture for breach, or for infringement. Ib.
8. Infringement; effect of sale on right of use of patented articles.
While an absolute and unconditional sale operates to pass the patented
article outside of the boundaries of the patent, a patentee may by
a conditional sale so restrict the use of his vendee within specific
boundaries of time, place or method as to make prohibited uses
outside of those boundaries constitute infringement and not mere
breach of collateral contract. Ib.
9. Infringement; right of use carried by sale of patented article; breach of
restriction as infringement.
The extent of a license to use, which is carried by a sale of a patented
article depends upon whether any restrictions were placed upon
the sale, and if so what they were, and how they were brought
home to the vendee; and where, as in this case, a restriction is
plainly placed upon the article itself, a sale carries with it only
the right to use within the limits specified, and any other use is
an infringing one. Ib.
10. Infringement; contributory defined.
Contributory infringement is the intentional aiding of one person by
another in the unlawful making, selling or using of a patented
invention. Ib.
11. Infringement; contributory; when sale of article adapted to infringing
use presumed to constitute.
A bare supposition that an article adapted for use in connection with
a patented machine sold under restricted license is to be used in
connection therewith will not make the vendor a contributory
infringer, but where the article so sold is only adapted to an
infringing use, there is a presumption that it is intended therefor.
Ib.
12. Infringement by officer of United States; remedy of patentee prior and
subsequent to act of June 25, 1910.
Prior to the passage of the act of June 25, 1910, 36 Stat. 851, c. 423,
a patentee, whose patent was infringed by an officer of the United
States, could not sue the United States unless a contract to pay
was implied; and the object of the statute is to afford a remedy
under circumstances where no contract can be implied, but where
the property rights of the inventor have been appropriated by
an officer of the United States for its benefit and the acts of such
officer ratified by the Government by the adoption of such act.
Crozier v. Krupp, 290.
13. Infringement by officer of United States; remedy of patentee; right to
injunction.
Since the enactment of the act of June 25, 1910, a patentee cannot
maintain an action for injunction against an officer of the United
States for infringing his patent for the benefit of the Government;
his remedy is to sue in the Court of Claims for compensation.
Ib.
14. Infringement by officer of United States; remedy of patentee; effect of
act of July 25, 1910.
In this case held that although this action was commenced before
June 25, 1910, as it was confined solely to obtaining an injunction
against future use, which cannot now be allowed, the action must
be dismissed without prejudice to the right of the patentee to
proceed in the Court of Claims for compensation under the act of
1910. Ib.
15. Infringement; use by Government as; De Bange gas check.
In this case, held that the De Bange gas check for large guns is a de-
vice of excellence, that the patents therefor are valid, and the gas
checking device used by the Government is an infringement
thereof. United States v. Anciens Etablissements, 309.
16. Infringement; scope of protection against.
The law secures the patentee against infringement by a use in other
forms and proportions than those specifically described in the
claims. Ib.
17. License; right to restrict use under.
The larger right of exclusive use of the patentee embraces the lesser
one of only permitting the licensee to use upon prescribed con-
ditions. Henry v. A. B. Dick Co., 1.
18. Monopoly created and protected by patent statute.
The patent statute is one creating and protecting a true monopoly
granted to subserve a broad public policy, and it should be con-
strued so as to give effect to a wise and beneficial purpose. Ib.
19. Monopoly of patent; extent of.
The monopoly of a patent extends to the right of making, selling and
using, and each is a separable and substantial right. Ib.
20. Monopoly of patent; power of courts in respect of.
Courts cannot declare the monopoly created by Congress under au-
thority of the Constitution to be unwise; Congress alone has
power to prescribe what restraints shall be imposed. Ib.
See FEDERAL QUESTION, 1-5;
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 11;
STATUTES, A 1.
1. Equity; multifariousness; misjoinder of causes of action; suit to set
aside conveyances of Indian allotted lands.
The bill in a suit brought to cancel for the same reason in each instance
|