112 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Ordinance "reg-5 (U.S.D.C.N.C.) Renewal of partnership ulating the speed of automobiles and railway notes after death of partner held not "novatrains" held to contain but one subject.-Balti-tion."-In re Brewer, 79. more & O. R. Co. v. De Leone, 201.

352 (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Sale of bonds by See Receivers. paving district held condition precedent in contract for paving.-Moreno-Burkham Const. Co. v. Burgauer, 718.

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER

VI. DEATH OF PARTNER, AND SURVIV

ING PARTNERS.

Prior party under original statements held entitled to amend after other party amended. -Id. 247 (U.S.D.C.N.C.) Note given after death106 (2) (D.C.) Senior party held not enof partner held subject to partnership debts.titled to make issue in interference.-Brewer v. -In re Brewer, 79. Russell, 619.

PATENTS.

II. PATENTABILITY.
(A) Invention.

106(2) (D.C.) Amendment of preliminary statement is largely within discretion of Patent Office tribunals.-Chapman v. Hammett, 634.

Refusal of permission to amend preliminary statement held proper.-Id.

112(4) (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Decision of Patent Office as to priority of invention entitled to great weight.-Earle v. A. W. Drake Mfg. Co., 137.

28 (U.S.D.C.Wis.) Design patent on any wall paper having specified effect cannot be granted.-Harmon Paper Co. v. Kimberly Clark Co., 501. Design must be susceptible of application. 113(6) (D.C.) Amendment changing meaning of claim cannot be considered on appeal.-Id. Application of Parker, 607.

33 (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Evidence of extensive, use, etc., admissible only in doubtful case. -Slip Scarf Co. v. Wm. Filene's Sons Co., 641. Where certain claims were clearly lacking in invention, refusing request for instruction that jury might consider evidence admissible only in doubtful cases was not error.-Id.

35 (U.S.D.C.Wis.) Commercial success immaterial, when question of invention not in doubt.-Harmon Paper Co. v. Kimberly Clark Co., 501.

36 (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Noninvention provable by preponderance of evidence.-Slip Scarf Co. v. Wm. Filene's Sons Co., 641.

36 (D.C.) Solution of problem on which many have worked is strong proof of invention.-Application of Parker, 607.

(D) Anticipation.

65 (U.S.D.C.Ohio) Obvious mechanical changes in foreign patented device do not defeat anticipation.-Universal Rim Co. v. Firestone Steel Products Co., 884.

66 (D.C.) Claims for welding soft iron pole pieces on permanent magnets held not patentable.-Application of Parker, 607.

72 (D.C.) Stirring apparatus for slaking lime held anticipated.-Application of Peters, 637.

73 (U.S.D.C.Ohio) Evidence held not to show invention earlier than application date. Universal Rim Co. v. Firestone Steel Products Co., 884.

III. PERSONS ENTITLED TO PATENTS.

Practice of applying for leave to amend after adverse decision is not to be approved.-Id. IX. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF

LETTERS PATENT.

(B) Limitation of Claims.

165 (U.S.D.C.Ohio) Each inventor taking step in gradual advance can claim only his specific form.-Universal Rim Co. v. Firestone Steel Products Co., 884.

X. TITLE, CONVEYANCES, AND CON-
TRACTS.

(A) Rights of Patentees in General.

183 (D.C.) Tender of lump sum payable under contract in installment held sufficient, as provision for installment was one which could be waived.-No-Leak-O Piston Ring Co. v. Chandlee, 526.

Assignee's information to Patent Office to protect patent held not to defeat right to conveyance.-Id.

Failure of assignee to pay expenses in Patent Office held not to defeat right to conveyance.-Id.

(C) Licenses and Contracts. 218(1) (U.S.D.C.Fla.) That defendant gave away valuable invention no defense to his liabuilt by libility to pay royalties.-Huff v. Ford, 858. 218(4) (U.S.D.C.Va.) Ships censee under patent for method of ship construction held within the patent and subject to royalties.-Isherwood v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 282.

90 (2) (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Right given by prior-219(2) (U.S.D.C.Fla.) Equitable plea by ity of invention may be lost by laches.-Earle v. A. W. Drake Mfg. Co., 137.

91(4) (D.C.) Drawing in foreign application held not to establish priority.-Guettler v. Alfsen, 613.

91(4) (D.C.) Evidence held to show installation constituted reduction to practice.Cooper v. Porter, 624.

IV. APPLICATIONS AND PROCEEDINGS
THEREON.

corporation officer denying that he individually manufactured device no defense to suit for royalties, as manufacture by others for his benefit would not decrease his liability.-Huff v. Ford, 858.

Equitable plea to royalty action alleging plaintiff to have perfected devices while in defendant's employ states no equitable defense. -Id.

In action for royalties, equitable plea alleging plaintiff inventor's thriftlessness and improvidence and defendant's charitable gift to him held not to state any, equitable defense.

106(2) (D.C.) Timely application to amend preliminary statement to preserve rights should-Id. be permitted.-Stillwell v. Thompson, 594.

In action for patent royalties, plaintiff's

knowledge of use of appliance by another than 1,204,245. Concrete road-tamping machine, defendant not an equitable defense.--Id.

Equitable plea alleging understanding that contract was abrogated held insufficient.-Id. Demand unnecessary as condition precedent to suit for unpaid royalties.-Id.

1,261,222.

1,344,570.

Equitable plea held to state no defense.-Id. Lapse of time resulting in embarrassment in obtaining testimony no equitable defense.-Id. Defendant's plea that plaintiff's failure to 1,344,603. make demand for royalties misled defendant into not substituting another device or not procuring indemnity held to state no defense.-Id. Failing memory of witnesses no equitable defense to action at law.-Id.

held not anticipated, valid and in-
fringed (C. C. A. Wis.) 289 F.
949.

Fly swatter, held not infringed (D.
C. Pa.) 289 F. 137.

Wall paper and process of making
same, held invalid (D. C. Wis.)
289 F. 501.

Paper-making apparatus, held invalid (D. C. Wis.) 289 F. 501. PAYMENT.

See Subrogation; Tender.

PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS.

Averment that material documents have been lost no equitable defense to action at law.-Id. 219(2) (U.S.D.C.Va.) That licensee fur-6(2) (D.C.) Osteopathy is within excepnished the invention for use of United States tion of physicians from requirement of license no defense to suit for royalties.-Isherwood v. to practice podiatry.-Howerton v. District of Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., Columbia, 628. 282.

XII. INFRINGEMENT.

(C) Suits in Equity.

286 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Conditional assignee of right to sue for infringement of patent held not entitled to sue.-Radio Corporation of America v. Hohenstein, 757.

308 (U.S.C.C.A.Or.) Patentee of gambling device wrongfully enjoined from use cannot recover damages.-Harbaugh v. Dwyer, 247.

314 (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Finding that process was new not inconsistent with finding of noninvention.-Slip Scarf Co. v. Wm. Filene's Sons Co., 641.

324(5) (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Plaintiff in infringement suit not prejudiced by failure to properly submit issue on which defendant entitled to prevail in any event.-Slip Scarf Co. v. Wm Filene's Sons Co., 641.

Charge in infringement suit held not prejudicial, where jury found in appellant's favor on the question charged on.-Id.

XIII. DECISIONS ON THE VALIDITY, CON-
STRUCTION, AND INFRINGEMENT
OF PARTICULAR PATENTS.

328.

UNITED STATES.

DESIGN.

54,152. Wall paper, held invalid (D. C. Wis.) 289 F. 501.

ORIGINAL.

1,005,835. Neckties, claims 1, 2, 3, limited and held not infringed (C. C. A. Mass.) 289 F. 641.

6(1) (D.C.) Act requiring examination of podiatrists does not apply to practice of recognized branch of medicine; "podiatry."-Howerton v. District of Columbia, 628.

(F) Affidavit of Defense or of Merits. 157 (D.C.) Allegations that separation was due to wife's misconduct and her custody of children wrongful held conclusions.-Maschauer v. Downs, 540.

VI. AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL
PLEADINGS AND REPLEADER.

236(4) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Permitting amendment of declaration after close of testimony held not error.-Hoyt Metal Co. v. Atwood, 453.

1,032,583. Boiler cleaner, held not infringed (C. C. A. Mich.) 289 F. 54. 1,095,775. Demountable tire-carrying rims, claims 1 and 9, held anticipated and invalid; claims 2 and 6, hela not infringed (D. C. Ohio) 289 236 (4) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Refusal to permit F. 884. amendment of pleadings during trial held discretionary.-Schnerb v. Holt Mfg. Co., 1001. XI. MOTIONS.

1,160,596. Device relating to tops of jars, held valid and infringed (C. C. A. N. Y.) 289 F. 788.

1,203,482. Concrete road-tamping machine, held not anticipated, valid and infringed, (C. C. A. Wis.) 289 F. 949.

348 (D.C.) As against motion for judg. ment, affidavit of defense held to allege separation of wife and furnishing of necessaries on her credit.-Maschauer v. Downs, 540.

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER

350(3) (D.C.) Motion for judgment for insufficiency of affidavit of defense is not to be treated as demurrer.-Cornwell v. Southern Maryland Trust Co., 939.

PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATIONS. See Carriers; Railroads; Telegraphs and Telephones.

QUIETING TITLE.

I. CONTROL AND REGULATION IN
GENERAL.

For practice in particular actions and proceed-52 [New, vol. 6A Key-No. Series]

ings, see the various specific topics.

PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.

See Attorney and Client; Brokers.

I. THE RELATION.
(B) Termination.

41 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Damages must be proved in action for breach.-Schnerb v. Holt Mfg. Co., 1001.

42 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Power of attorney revoked by bankruptcy.-In re Columbia Shoe Co., 465.

III. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES AS TO
THIRD PERSONS.

Settlement

(U.S.C.C.A.Kan.) Action against federal agent after resignation held improper.-Davidson v. Payne, 69.

52 [New, vol. 6A Key-No. Series]

(D.C.) Limitation in Transportation Act applies only to causes of action accruing during federal control.-Hudson v. Davis, 943.

Federal agent cannot be sued on cause of action arising since termination of federal con

trol.-Id.

IX. RECEIVERS.

210 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Receiver appointed by federal court bound by state laws.-Pittsburgh & Shawmut Coal Co. v. Delaware & N. R. Co., 133.

Federal court may not authorize abandonment of unprofitable branch, contrary to state law. of-Id.

(C) Unauthorized and Wrongful Acts. 155(1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) claim with agent without authority held not effective. Coyle v. Morrisdale Coal Co., 429.

PROCESS.

II. SERVICE.

(C) Publication or Other Notice. 86 (D.C.) Situs of claim of defendant gives no jurisdiction by publication, if plaintiff has no lien thereon.-Lindberg v. Humphrey, 901.

PROHIBITION.

See Intoxicating Liquors.

PROMISSORY NOTES.

See Bills and Notes.

PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.

See Municipal Corporations, 352.

PUBLIC LANDS.

1. GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP. Cmm 7 (U.S.C.C.A.Idaho) Right of entryman wholly dependent on acts of Congress.-Nixon v. U. S., 177.

X. OPERATION.

(A) Duty to Operate.

214 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Owners may abandon entire road, if unprofitable.-Pittsburgh & Shawmut Coal Co. v. Delaware & N. R. Co., 133.

Right to abandon entire line, if unprofitable, cannot be impaired by statute.-Id. (B) Statutory,

Municipal, and Official Regulations.

236 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Municipal ordinance regulating speed presumptively valid.-Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. De Leone, 201.

Ordinance held effective to limit lawful speed of railway trains.-Id.

(F) Accidents at Crossings. 327(1) (U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) Look and listen rule rot absolute.-Southern Ry. Co. v. Priester, 945.

Traveler crossing without looking negligent. -Id.

327 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) Failure to look for train which was in plain sight_held_gross contributory negligence.-Southern Ry. Co. v. Priester, 945.

327(12) (U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) Wife, riding in II. SURVEY AND DISPOSAL OF LANDS OF automobile driven by husband, held grossly negligent. Southern Ry. Co. v. Priester, 945.

UNITED STATES.

(I) Proceedings in Land Office. 103(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Heirs of deceased contestant entitled to preference right of entry on relinquishment by contestee.-Wells v. Bodkin, 245.

335(3) (U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) Gross contributory negligence of traveler prevents recovery under state statutes, notwithstanding failure to sound statutory signals.-Southern Ry. Co. v. Priester, 945.

Railroads

289 FEDERAL REPORTER

REMOVAL OF CAUSES.

346 (5) (U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) Traveler presumed to have exercised care.-Southern Ry. Co. v. Priester, 945.

VIII. PROCEEDINGS IN CAUSE AFTER
REMOVAL.

346 (6) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Burden of prov-112 (U.S.D.C.Fla.) Defendant
ing contributory negligence on defense.-Lehigh
Valley R. Co. v. Quereau, 767.

held 350(7) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Negligence question for jury on evidence as to signals.— Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Quereau, 767. mm 350 (7) (U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) Conflicting evi

removing cause to federal court and filing demurrers and pleas waived right to question jurisdiction.— Huff v. Ford, 858.

RETROSPECTIVE LAWS.

dence as to statutory signals held for jury. See Statutes, 265. Southern Ry. Co. v. Priester, 945.

350 (22) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Contributory

negligence of truck driver at crossing held See Taxation. question for jury.-Baltimore & O. R. Co. v.

De Leone, 201.

REVENUE.

REVIEW.

350 (32) (U.S.C.C.A.N.H.) Proximate cause See Appeal and Error.

of injury to automobile passenger held for jury. -Boston & M. R. R. v. Dutille. 320.

VI. ACTIONS.

RISKS.

See Master and Servant, 204–220.
RULES OF COURT.

See Court Rules Cited.

SALES.

See Vendor and Purchaser.

I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY OF
CONTRACT.

22(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Va.) Recognition of contract binding on defendant buyer.-Gilbert Grocery Co. v. Howell, 474.

23(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Written order and acceptance held to constitute contract for sale of coal.-Everett v. Emmons Coal Mining Co., 686. 50 (U.S.C.C.A.Miss.) Buyer held estopped to deny existence of contract.-Godchaux Sugars v. Meridian Wholesale Co., 359.

II. CONSTRUCTION OF CONTRACT. 62 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Contract for monthly deliveries of coal is separable.-Everett v. Emmons Coal Mining Co., 686.

165 (U.S.C.C.A.Iowa) Receiver cannot by ancillary bill bring in parties against whom he has no cause of action.-Carey v. McMillan, 380.71 (5) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Where maximum Ancillary bill by receiver held not maintainable.-Id.

RECORDS.

See Appeal and Error, 501; Criminal Law, 1092-1120.

REFERENCE.

See Arbitration and Award.

REFORMATION OF INSTRUMENTS.

1. RIGHT OF ACTION AND DEFENSES. 20 (U.S.D.C.Va.) To warrant reformation for mistake of one party, fraud must be shown. -Isherwood v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 282.

83 (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Obligations of under, "c. i. f." contract stated.-Rand v. Morse, 339.

IV. PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT. (C) Delivery and Acceptance of Goods. 152 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Buyer's option to require maximum amount of manufactured goods ordered held seasonably exercised.-Crystal Paper Co. v. Robertson Co., 15.

II. PROCEEDINGS AND RELIEF. 45(2) (U.S.D.C.Va.) Evidence held not to show mutuality of mistake.-Isherwood v. New-161 (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Bill of lading passes port News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 282. To warrant reformation for mistake of one party, evidence must clearly establish fraud and error.-Id.

title, and surrender amounts to constructive or symbolical delivery.-Rand v. Morse, 339. Invoices not necessary documents under c. i. f. contract.-Id.