Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

vested by the constitution of the United States in the general government should be preserved in full efficiency, and while recent events have called for the most unembarrassed exercise of many of those powers, it has never been decided that state taxation of such property is impliedly prohibited." In Bank v. Com., 9 Wall, 353, which was a case of a tax levied upon the shares of a national bank, the same objection in regard to a tax by state authority was pressed upon the court, but this court said that the principle of exemption of federal agencies from state taxation has a limitation growing out of the necessity upon which the principle is founded. "That limitation is, that the agencies of the federal government are only exempted from state legislation so far as that legislation may interfere with or impair their efficiency in performing the functions by which they are designed to serve that government. Any other rule would convert a principle founded alone in the necessity of securing to the government of the United States the means of exercising its legitimate powers into an unauthorized and unjustifiable invasion of the rights of the states. * ** So of the banks. They are subject to the laws of the state, and are governed in their daily course of business far more by the laws of the state than of the nation. All their contracts are governed and construed by state laws. Their acquisition and transfer of property, their right to collect their debts, and their liability to be sued for debts, are all based on state law. It is only when the state law incapacitates the banks from discharging their duties to the government that it becomes unconstitutional. We do not see the remotest probability of this, in their being required to pay the tax which their stockholders owe to the state for the shares of their capital stock, when the law of the federal government authorizes the tax." The tax in the present case, though nominally upon the shares of the capital stock of the company, is in effect a tax upon that organization on account of property owned and used by it in the state of Massachusetts, and the proportion of the length of its lines in that state to their entire length throughout the whole country is made the basis for ascertaining the value of that property. We do not think that such a tax is forbidden by the acceptance on the part of the telegraph company of the rights conferred by section 5263 of the Revised Statutes, or by the commerce clause of the constitution.

It is urged against this tax that in ascertaining the value of the stock no deduction is made on account of the value of real estate and machinery situated and subject to local taxation outside of the commonwealth of Massachusetts. The report of Examiner Fisk, to whom the matter was referred to find the facts, states that the amount of the value of said real estate outside of its jurisdiction was not clearly shown, but it did appear that the cost of land and buildings belonging to the company and entirely without that state was over $3,000,000. In the statement of the treasurer of the company it is said that the value of real estate owned by the company within the state of Massachusetts was nothing. Since the corporation was only taxed for that proportion of its shares of capital stock which was supposed to be taxable in that state on the calculation above referred to, and since no real estate of the corporation was owned or taxed within its limits, we do not see why any deduction should be made from the proportion of the capital stock which is taxed by its authorities. But if this were otherwise we do not feel called upon to defend all the items and rules by which they arrived at the taxable value on which its ratio of percentage of taxation should be assessed; and even in this case, which comes from the circuit court and not from that of the state, we think it should appear that the corporation is injured by some principle or rule of the law not equally applicable to other objects of taxation of like character. Since, therefore, this statute of Massachusetts is intended to govern the taxation of all corporations therein, and doing business within its territory, whether organized under its own laws or those of some other state, and since the principle is one which we cannot pronounce to be an unfair or an unjust

one, we do not feel called upon to hold the tax void, because we might have adopted a different system had we been called upon to accomplish the same result. It is very clear to us, when we consider the limited territorial extent of Massachusetts, and the proportion of the length of the lines of this company in that state to its business done therein, with its great population and business activity, that the rule adopted to ascertain the amount of the value of the capital engaged in that business within its boundaries, on which the tax should be assessed, is not unfavorable to the corporation, and that the details of the method by which this was determined have not exceeded the fair range of legislative discretion. We do not think that it follows necessarily, or as a fair argument from the facts stated in the case, that there was injustice in the assessment for taxation. The result of these views is, that the tax assessed against the plaintiff in error, is a valid tax; that the judgment of the court below, "that the sum claimed by the plaintiff (below) to be due for taxes, to-wit, $10,618.46, be paid to said state by said corporation, with interest thereon," is without error, and so much of said judgment is hereby affirmed.

The decree or judgment, however, proceeds and awards an injunction against the company in the following language, added to that above extracted: "and that an injunction shall be issued out of and under the seal of this court, directed to said corporation, and its officers, agents, and servants, commanding them and each of them absolutely to desist and refrain from the further prosecution of the business of said corporation until said sums due to the said commonwealth for taxes, as aforesaid, shall have been fully paid, with interest and costs, unless the said sum is paid by said defendant within thirty days from the entry hereof." The effect of this injunction, if obeyed, is to utterly suspend the business of the telegraph company, and defeat all its operations within the state of Massachusetts. The act of congress says that the company accepting its provisions "shall have the right to construct, maintain, and operate lines of telegraph through and over any portion of the public domain of the United States, over and along any of the military or post-roads of the United States." It is found in this case that 2,334.55 miles of the company's line, out of 2,833.05 on which this tax is assessed, are along and over such post-roads, and of course the injunction prohibits the operation of the defendant's telegraph over these lines, nearly all it has in the state. If the congress of the United States had authority to say that the company might construct and operate its telegraph over these lines, as we have repeatedly held it had, the state can have no authority to say it shall not be done. The injunction in this case, though ordered by a circuit court of the United States, is only granted by virtue of section 54 of chapter 13 of the Public Statutes of Massachusetts. If this statute is void, as we think it is, so far as it prescribes this injunction as a remedy to enforce the collection of its taxes by the decree of the court awarding it, the injunction is erroneous. In holding this portion of section 54 of chapter 13 of the Massachusetts Statutes to be void as applicable to this case, we do not deprive the state of the power to assess and collect the tax. If a resort to a judicial proceeding to collect it is deemed expedient, there remains to the court all the ordinary means of enforcing its judgment-executions, sequestration, and any other appropriate remedy in

chancery.

That part of the decree of the circuit court which awards the injunction is, therefore, reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings in conformity to this opinion.

BRADLEY, J., was not present at the argument of this case, and took no part in its decision.

YALE LOCK MANUF'G Co. v. JAMES.1
(April 9, 1888.)

PATENTS FOR INVENTION-EXTENT OF CLAIM-METALLIC FRONTS FOR POST-OFFICE
BOXES.
The first and second claims of reissued letters patent No. 8,783, to plaintiff as as-
signee of Silas N. Brooks, administrator of Linus Yale, Jr., for "an improvement
in post-office boxes," are to be limited so as to require the combination of door
frames, doors, and pigeon-holes, to be by means of rivets or bolts which attach the
frames both to the wood-work and to each other, and are not infringed by a series
of boxes having their metal front fastened to the wood-work by means of flanges
and screws, where such screws attaching the frames to the wood-work do not at-
tach them to each other..

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

Frederic H. Betts, for appellant. Sol. Gen. Jenks, for appellee.

BLATCHFORD, J. This is a suit in equity, brought by the Yale Lock Manufacturing Company, a Connecticut corporation, against Thomas L. James, to recover for the alleged infringement of reissued letters patent No. 8,783, granted to the plaintiff as assignee of S. N. Brooks, administrator of L. Yale, Jr., deceased, July 1, 1879, for an "improvement in post-office boxes," on an application for a reissue filed May 23, 1879, (the original patent, No. 119,212, having been granted to Silas N. Brooks, administrator of Yale, September 19, 1871, on an application filed September 30, 1868; and having been reissued to said Brooks, as administrator, July 9, 1872, as No. 4,963, on an application for reissue filed May 7, 1872; and having been again reissued to said Brooks, as administrator, April 24, 1877, as No. 7,625, on an application for reissue filed April 19, 1875.) The circuit court dismissed the bill, and the plaintiff has appealed from its decree. Among other defenses the answer sets up that each of the three reissues was not for the same invention as the original patent, but contained material new matter, and was therefore invalid. Reissue No. 8,783 was the subject of a suit in equity, brought in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Connecticut, by the present plaintiff, against the Scovill Manufacturing Company, in which Judge SHIPMAN, in June, 1880, gave a decree for the plaintiff as to the first and second claims of the patent. 18 Blatchf. 248, 3 Fed. Rep. 228. The original patent contained the following description of the invention: "This invention relates to an improvement in the construction of the fronts of post-office boxes, and consists in making said fronts, including the doors and box frames, of metal, and in securing the frames to the wooden pigeon-holes by rivets connecting the frames with each other at top, bottom, and sides. The body of these boxes is to be made of wood, in the usual manner, namely, a series of pigeonholes, but the front of the box and the door frame are made of iron, or other suitable metal. Each door frame or box front is so made that it aids in covering the edge of the wooden petition, or pigeon-holes, and is connected with the other frames above, below, and on each side of it in such manner that the frames make a continuous frontage, no part of which can be removed (from the outside) without pulling down other parts, and breaking the wood-work, so that a surreptitious removal of the front of any box, in order to get possession of its contents, is practically impossible. Each frame, made, as before stated, of metal, has all around it a flange, a, a, which protects the outside of the wood-work. The sides of the frame, b, b, enter and fit closely against the wood forming the pigeon-holes, and may be continuous, or notched out at intervals, and each frame has attached to it one leaf of two or more hinges, c, c. The door is of iron, solid at top, where the lock, d, is attached,

1Affirming 20 Fed. Rep. 903.

and having an opening, e, below, in which a plate of glass is secured. I prefer to locate rods, f, f, behind the plate, to prevent the introduction of a hand if the glass be broken, and so to form the door that, when shut, it enters within the frame, (see g, g,) so that it cannot be lifted from its hinges. When the frames are all in place, each frame is riveted through the wood-work to its four neighbors, (see h, h, Fig. 2,) and thus a continuous iron frontage is formed. Each door has a small spring bolt, i, and a lock, d, attached to it, the two operating together, and forming, in the hands of the postmaster, a perfect safeguard against all entrance to the box by means of the key, as is more particularly set forth in my application for a patent therefor, made equal date with this." That patent had two claims, as follows: "(1) The combination of several box frames with each other and with pigeon-holes, as described, by means of rivets passing through the frames and the wood-work entering between the said frames, the combination being substantially as described; (2) the above, in combination with the flanges, making part of the frames, and protecting and inclosing the exterior of the wood-work, substantially as set forth." The first reissue, No. 4,963, contained the following description of the invention: "This invention relates to an improvement in the fronts of post-office boxes, and consists in making said fronts, including the doors and box frames, of metal, said box frames being constructed so as to overlap and cover, in whole or in part, the front edges of the wooden pigeonholes to which they are affixed. The body of the boxes is to be made of wood in the usual manner, viz, a series of pigeon-holes, but the front of the box and the door frame are made of iron, or other suitable metal. Each door frame or box front is so made that it aids in covering the edge of the wooden partition, or pigeon-holes, and is connected with the other frames above, below, and on each side of it in such manner that the frames will make a continuous frontage, no part of which can be removed from the outside without pulling down other parts. Each frame, made, as before stated, of metal, has all around it a flange, a, a, which protects the outside or edges of the woodwork. The sides of the frame, b, b, enter and fit closely against the wood forming the pigeon-holes, and may be continuous, or notched out at intervals; and each frame has attached to it one leaf of two or more hinges, c, c. The door may be of any desirable metal, solid where the lock, d, is attached, and having an opening, e, below, in which a plate of glass is secured. I prefer to locate rods, f, f, behind the plate, to prevent the introduction of a hand if the glass be broken. The door is so constructed that, when shut, it enters within the frame, so that it cannot be lifted from its hinges. When the frames are all in place, each frame is riveted through the wood-work to its four neighbors, (see h, h, Fig. 2,) and in this way forms a continuous metal frontage. The door for each frame has a small spring bolt, i, and a lock, d, attached to it, the two operating together, and forming, in the hands of the postmaster, a perfect safeguard against all entrance to the box by means of the key, as is more particularly set forth in letters patent granted to me on the 24th day of October, 1871, and numbered 120,177." That reissue contained two claims, as follows: "(1) The combination of several box frames with each other and with pigeon-holes, as described, by means of rivets passing through the frames and the wood-work entering between the said frames, the combination being substantially as described; (2) the combination of two or more metallic frames and doors and locks with pigeon-holes, said frames having flanges, which protect and inclose, wholly or in part, the front edges of said pigeon-holes." In order to a comparison of the specification and claims of the first reissue with the specification and claims of the original patent, the parts of each which are not found in the other are above put in italics.

The specification and claims of reissue No. 8,783 are as follows: "This invention consists in an improvement in the construction of post-office boxes,

and its chief feature is the combination of a tier of pigeon-holes made of wood with a continuous frontage of metal, such frontage consisting of doors and their frames, which latter cover the ends of the boards which form the pigeonholes. A series of wooden pigeon-holes, open at the rear, and covered at the front, or on the outside, by a permanent glass front, is very old, and such a series was used for post-office boxes, and in hotels as a receptacle for keys, cards, letters, etc. There has also been in use a series of wooden pigeonholes, each provided at one end with a door, as described in the patent granted to Jacob Beidler, May 28, 1866; but in this patent the door is described as hinged to the wood, and the construction is consequently insecure, as an ordinary pocket-knife or small chisel will, even in inexperienced hands, suffice to cut away the wood, or pry off the door, so that the boxes may be entered." Pigeon-holes made of iron or other metal are difficult to construct, and very costly, but such pigeon-holes, each provided with an ordinary metal door, would be sufficiently secure. Such a degree of security at a comparatively low cost is attained by covering the front of a series of wooden pigeon-holes with a continuous metallic frontage, that is, a frontage which presents a continuous surface of metal, or, in other words, a surface which covers the ends of the wooden pigeon-holes in such manner that those portions of the wood to which the metallic frames are attached cannot be attacked when the doors making part of the frontage are closed. In constructing Yale's invention the body of the boxes, or the series of pigeon-holes, is to be made of wood in any usual manner, and the fronts thereof, viz., the doors and their frames, are to be made of iron, or other suitable metal. Each door frame is of such size that it aids in covering the ends of the wooden partitions that form the pigeonholes to which it is applied, and these frames (see Fig. 1) are of such size and shape that, where a series of them are combined with a series of pigeon-holes, they cover the whole of the ends of the wood. Each door frame is a plate of metal, a, a, which, when in place, overlaps a part of the ends of the woodwork surrounding the pigeon-hole, the outside of the frame inclosing a greater area than the orifice of the pigeon-hole, and each frame has an ear, b, b, which enters the pigeon-hole; but this ear may be either continuous, or notched out at intervals. The door is of iron or other metal, solid at top and having an opening, e, below, in which a plate of glass is secured, and is hinged to the frame as at c, c. It is preferable to locate rods, f, f, behind the plate, so as to prevent the introduction of a hand if the glass be broken, and so to form and hinge the door that, when shut, it enters within the frame, so that it cannot be lifted from its hinges when shut. When the frames are all in place, each frame is riveted or bolted to the wood-work to fasten it thereto, and is also riveted or bolted to its four neighbors to secure the frames to each other. (See h, h, Fig. 2.) Thus each frame is secured to the wood-work, so that it cannot be removed till the rivet or the wood-work is cut away or broken. When all the frames are in place, a continuous metallic frontage protecting the wood-work is presented upon the outside of the series of boxes, that is, the side where the public can approach the boxes. Each door has a lock attached to it, the bolt of which is actuated through the intervention of an arm, k, in the manner and for the purposes set forth in a patent granted for the invention of Linus Yale, Jr., on the 24th day of October, 1871, No. 120,177. An iron door in an iron frame is not claimed as of Yale's invention, as such doors have been used in safe-vaults and for furnaces. What is claimed as the invention of said Linus Yale, Jr., deceased, is (1) the combination, substantially as specified, of a series of metallic door frames and doors with a series of wooden pigeon-holes, whereby a series of post-office boxes with a continuous metallic frontage is formed; (2) the combination, substantially as described, of a series of wooden pigeon-holes with a series of metallic door frames and doors, and with rivets or bolts which attach the frames to the wood-work, whereby a continuous metallic frontage secured to the wood-work

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »