upon them by the regulation established by the secretary, under the law." The court charged the jury that if one of the subordinate officers of the customs, in the course of the performance of his duty, did an absolute wrong to the plaintiff, such as to take her trunk from her, and keep it from her when she wanted it, and was by law entitled to it, the defendant would be liable. The defendant excepted to this charge. The court gave further instructions which bore upon the matters set forth in the defendant's requests to charge, but which, in the view we take of the case, it is not important to notice. The bill of exceptions states that the court did not comply with the defendant's requests to charge further than as appears by the charge as stated, and that the defendant excepted to the refusal to charge as to each request separately, so far as the court did refuse. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for $459. The court ordered that a certificate of probable cause be entered, and on the verdict, with costs added, a judgment was entered for the plaintiff for $502.96, to review which the defendant has brought a writ of error.

We are of opinion that there was error in the charge of the court, and that the defendant was not liable for the wrong, if any, committed by his subordinates, on the facts of this case. There is nothing in the evidence to connect the defendant personally with any such wrong. No evidence was given that the officers in question were not competent, or were not properly selected for their respective positions. The subordinate who was guilty of the wrong, if any, would undoubtedly be liable personally for the tort; but to permit a recovery against the collector, on the facts of this case, would be to establish a principle which would paralyze the public service. Competent persons could not be found to fill positions of the kind, if they knew they would be held liable for all the torts and wrongs committed by a large body of subordinates, in the discharge of duties which it would be utterly impossible for the superior officer to discharge in person. This principle is well established by authority. It is not affected by the fact that a statutory action is given to an importer to recover back, in certain cases, an excess of duties paid under protest; nor by the fact that a superior officer may be held liable for unlawful fees exacted by his subordinate, where lawful fees are prescribed by statute, and where such fees are given by law to the superior, or for the act of a deputy performed in the ordinary line of his official duty as prescribed by law. The government itself is not responsible for the misfeasances or wrongs or negligences or omissions of duty of the subordinate officers or agents employed in the public service; for it does not undertake to guaranty to any person the fidelity of any of the officers or agents whom it employs; since that would involve it, in all its operations, in endless embarrassments and difficulties and losses, which would be subversive of the public interests. Story, Ag. § 319; Seymour v. Van Slyck, 8 Wend. 403, 422; U. S. v. Kirkpatrick, 9 Wheat. 720, 735; Gibbons v. U. S., 8 Wall. 269; Whiteside v. U. S., 93 U. S. 247, 257; Hart v. U. S., 95 U. S. 316, 318; Moffat v. U. S., 112 U. S. 24, 31, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 10; Schmalz's Case, 4 Ct. Cl. 142. The head of a department, or other superior functionary, is not in a different position. A public officer or agent is not responsible for the misfeasances or positive wrongs, or for the nonfeasances or negligences or omissions of duty, of the subagents or servants or other persons properly employed by or under him, in the discharge of his official duties. Story, Ag. § 319. In Keenan v. Southworth, 110 Mass. 474, it was held that a postmaster was not liable for the loss of a letter, occasioned by the negligence or wrongful conduct of his clerk. The court said: "The law is well settled, in England and America, that the postmaster general, the deputy postmasters, and their assistants and clerks, appointed and sworn as required by law, are public officers, each of whom is responsible for his own negligence only, and not for that of any of the others, although selected by him and subject to his orders." The court cited, to sustain this

view, Lane v. Cotton, 1 Ld. Raym. 646, 12 Mod. 472; Whitfield v. Le Despencer, Cowp. 754; Dunlop v. Munroe, 7 Cranch, 242; Schroyer v. Lynch, 8 Watts, 453; Bishop v. Williamson, 11 Me. 495; Hutchins v. Brackett, 2 Fost. (N. H.) 252. To the same purport are Bailey v. Mayor, 3 Hill, 531; Conwell v. Voorhees, 13 Ohio, 523, 543; Story, Bailm. §§ 462, 463; 1 Bell, Comm. (5th Ed.) 468; 2 Kent, Comm. (4th Ed.) 610, 611. The very question here involved came before the circuit court of the United States for the Southern district of New York, in the case of Brissac v. Lawrence, 2 Blatchf. 121, (in June, 1850.) The defendant was the collector of the port of New York. Imported goods belonging to the plaintiff had been deposited in a custom-house warehouse, and were either lost or mislaid there, or were delivered to some person not entitled to them. At the trial it was sought to show carelessness on the part of the defendant, as the head of the custom-house department, in the manner in which the books of the warehouse were kept, and also that the book-keeper was a person of intemperate habits and unfit for the situation. On the other hand, it was proved that the books were kept in conformity with the mode usually adopted at the time for keeping books of that kind; that the intemperate book-keeper had been discharged; and that, during a period of 19 months, out of 200,000 packages of goods which had been received at the warehouse in question, only two packages had been lost. Mr. Justice NELSON, in charging the jury, submitted to them the question whether the collector had been guilty of personal negligence in respect to the goods. In the course of the charge, the court said: "The collector is not personally responsible for the negligence of his subordinates in the custom-house department, and therefore he is not responsible for the negligence of persons employed in the warehouse department. * * * In order to charge the defendant with the loss, it is necessary that the plaintiffs should satisfy you, by affirmative and reasonable testimony, that the collector was personally guilty of negligence in the discharge of his duty, either by misdeed or by omission. * * This

is a suit against the collector, who did not have charge of the goods; and, in order to render him liable, you must find him to have been guilty of personal neglect, misfeasance, or wrong. * * * In view of the fact that the collector of New York has charge of all the business from which two-thirds of the entire revenue of the United States is collected, and has thousands of subordinates, and upon the evidence that only one package out of every one hundred thousand which passed through the hands of those subordinates has been lost, it is strange that this case has been so urgently pressed, with the idea that, upon any principle of equity, much less of law, there could be any liability on the part of the collector." The jury found a verdict for the defendant. See, also, U. S. v. Brodhead, 3 Reporter, 95; Whart. Ag. § 550. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court, with a direction to grant a new trial.

FLOWER et al. v. CITY OF DETROIT et al.1
(May 14, 1888.)

PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-REISSUE-EXPANSION OF CLAIMS.

Reissued letters patent No. 6,990, granted March 14, 1876, to T. R. Bailey, for an "improvement in hydrants," the original patent having been granted to said Bailey, and numbered 75,344, are invalid by reason of the attempted expansion of the original patent so as to cover a movable casing for hydrants to prevent disarrangement by freezing and thawing; such casing not having been claimed in the original patent, and the diagrams of the original and reissue so differing that it is manifest that it did not exist in the original.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan.

1Affirming 22 Fed. Rep. 292.

Edward J. Hill, for appellants. Geo. L. Roberts, for appellees.

BLATCHFORD, J. This is a suit in equity, brought in the circuit court of the United States for the Eastern district of Michigan, by James Flower, Thomas Flower, and George Flower, against the city of Detroit, the fire commission of the city of Detroit, Benjamin Vernon, president thereof, and the board of water commissioners of the city of Detroit, for the infringement of reissued letters patent No. 6,990, granted March 14, 1876, on an application filed February 17, 1876, to Thomas R. Bailey, Jr., for an "improvement in hydrants;" the original patent, No. 75,344, having been granted to said Bailey, March 10, 1868. Among the defenses set up in the answer, it was alleged that new matter, not constituting any substantial part of the alleged invention upon which the original patent was granted, was introduced into the specification of the reissue, and that the reissue is not for the same invention as the original patent, and is void. The specifications and claims of the original and of the reissue are here placed side by side in parallel columns, the parts in each which are not found in the other being in italic:

ORIGINAL.

"To all whom it may concern:

"Be it known that I, T. R. Bailey, Jr., of Lockport, in the county of Niagara and state of New York, have invented a new and improved hydrant fire-plug; and I do hereby declare that the following is a full, clear, and exact description thereof, which will enable those skilled in the art to make and use the same, reference being had to the accompanying drawings, forming part of this specification.

"This invention relates to a new and improved method of constructing fire-plugs or hydrants; and the invention consists in operating a cylinder valve in a suitable case, and in the arrangement and combination of parts connected therewith, as hereinafter described.

"Figure 1 represents a longitudinal central section of the hydrant, showing the parts of which it is composed, and the manner of their arrangement. Fig. 2 is a cross-section of Fig. 1 through the line, x, x.

"Similar letters of reference indicate corresponding parts.

"A represents the hydrant tube, from which the water is discharged. B is the horizontal section which is connected with the water-main' and which forms the valve-chamber.

REISSUE.

"To all whom it may concern:

"Be it known that I, T. R. Bailey, Jr., of Lockport, in the county of Niagara and state of New York, have invented a new and improved hydrant fire-plug; and I do hereby declare the following to be a full, clear, and exact description thereof, which will enable others skilled in the art to which my invention relates to make and use the same, reference being had to the accompanying drawing, which forms a part of this specification.

"This invention relates to improvements in the construction of fire-plugs or hydrants.

"C is a loose casing around the hydrant tube for protecting the tube from dirt, etc. D is the cylinder valve which has its seat at its lower end, on elastic or leather packing, secured in a groove, as seen in the drawing at a. E is a rod, having a screwthread on its upper end, by which the valve is operated. F is a sleeve-nut, which engages with the screw on the rod, raising and lowering it as the nut is turned. This nut is turned by a wrench on the head, G.

"C is a loose movable casing around the hydrant tube. D is the cylinder valve, having its seat at its lower end, upon suitable elastic packing, secured in a groove, as shown at a. E is a rod, having a screw-thread on its upper end, by which the valve is operated. F is a sleeve-nut engaged with the screw-nut on the rod, E, lifting and lowering said rod as the nut is turned one way or another. This nut is turned by a wrench or crank, or other suitable device, on the head, G.

"The sleeve-nut is secured in the "The sleeve-nut is screwed in the cap of the hydrant by a collar, and cap of the hydrant by a collar, and packing under the hollow cylinder packing under the hollow cylinder stuffing-box, H, as seen in the draw- stuffing-box, H. J is a yoke, which ing. Jis a yoke, which is attached is attached to the rod, E, by a setto the rod, E, by a set-screw, and which is secured in the tube, A, and prevented from turning, as it moves up and down, by projecting lugs, as seen in Fig. 2; and it will be seen that the arrangement is such that the rod and valve may be raised and lowered without being rotated. This secures a uniform and perfect bearing of the valve on its seat, the packing, a, remaining undisturbed.

"Provision is made for the discharge of the waste water by an orifice beneath the valve, D, marked 'f,' which orifice is opened and closed by a valve marked 'g,' as seen in the drawing. h is a wing on the top of this valve. "As the cylinder valve, D, descends, the angular flange, i, on its inside strikes the wing, h, and raises the valve as seen in the drawing; thus allowing any water which may remain in the hydrant to escape through the orifice, ƒ, and aperature, k. It will be thus seen that no water will be left in the hydrant to freeze in cold weather.

"The tube, A, is secured to the horizontal section, B, by a ring-nut, m, which contains recesses for packingrings around the valve, as seen at n, n. Packing around the valve is secured by another ring-nut, o, and also under the end of the tube, A, as seen in the drawing.

"P represents the discharge pipe, with a screw for the attachment of the hose, and a cap-piece for covering

screw, or its equivalent, and it is screwed in the tube, A, and prevented from turning, as it moves up and down, by projecting lugs, as shown in detail at Fig. 2. It will be noticed that the arrangement is such that the rod and valve may be raised and lowered without being rotated; thus securing a uniform and perfect bearing of the valve on its seat, the packing, a, remaining undisturbed.

"Provision is made for the discharge of the waste water by an orifice, ƒ, beneath the valve, D, which orifice is opened and closed by a valve, g. A wing, h, is provided upon the top of this valve.

"As the cylinder valve, D, descends, the angular flange, i, on its inside, striking the wing, h, raises the valve, as shown in the drawing, and allows any water which may remain in the hydrant to escape down through the orifice, f, and aperature, K; thus preventing any retention of water above the freezing level.

"The tube, A', is secured to the horizontal section, B, by a ring-nut, m, which contains recesses for packingrings around the valve, as shown at n. Packing about the valve is also secured by another ring-nut, o, and also under the end of the tube, A, as shown in the drawings.

"P represents the discharge pipe, with a screw for the attachment of the hose, and a cap-piece for covering

the pipe when the hydrant is not in the pipe when the hydrant is not in