MEXICAN GRANT.
See PUBLIC LAND, 1, 2, 3, 8–13.
MINERAL LAND.
See EJECTMENT;
PUBLIC LAND, 6, 7, 14.
1. When a mortgage contains no provision for the payment of rents and
profits to the mortgagee while the mortgagor remains in possession,
the mortgagee is not entitled, —as against the owner of the equity of
redemption, to the rents and profits of the mortgaged premises until
he takes actual possession, or until possession is taken in his behalf;
even though the income may be expressly pledged as security for the
mortgage debt, with the right in the mortgagee to take possession
upon failure by the mortgagor to perform the conditions of the mort-
gage. Freedman's Saving and Trust Co. v. Shepherd, 494.
2. When a decree of foreclosure and sale of mortgaged property grants to
the purchaser a credit for part of the purchase money, reserving a lien
upon the property to enforce its payment, the court may, if the pur-
chaser make default, and no rights of innocent third parties have
intervened, order a resale of the property upon a rule to the purchaser
to show cause why it should not be done. Stuart v. Gay, 518.
3. The decree of foreclosure in this case conferred upon the purchaser at
the foreclosure sale no such right of acquiring the securities of the
lower classes to be paid from the fund realized from the sale, as would
authorize him, as such purchaser, to dispute in a proceeding in the
original suit for foreclosure to compel payment of the amount remain-
ing due of the purchase money, the computations by the master, con-
firmed by the decree of the court, of the amounts which the creditors
of the higher classes were to receive from the fund. Ib.
4. In marshalling the classes of debts entitled to be paid out of a fund
arising from a sale of mortgaged property under a decree of foreclos-
ure, it is immaterial whether the master calculates the interest to a
day prior to the date of the decree of sale, or up to that day, for the
purpose of determining the principal sum that is to bear interest
thereafter. Ib.
See RAILROAD, 3;
TRUST, 1.
See MUNICIPAL CORPORATION.
1. In this case certain negotiable bonds, issued by the town of Milan, Ten-
nessee, were held to have been issued without lawful authority. Kelley
v. Milan, 139.
2. A municipal corporation, in order to exercise the power of becoming a
stockholder in a railroad corporation, must have such power expressly
onferred by a grant from the legislature; and even such power does
not carry with it the power to issue negotiable bonds in payment of
the subscription, unless the latter power is expressly, or by reasonable
implication, conferred by statute. lb.
3. Certain provisions of the statutes of Tennessee considered and held
not to confer power on the town of Milan to issue the bonds in ques-
tion. Ib.
4. In a suit in chancery, brought by the town authorities to have the bonds
declared invalid, a decree had been entered declaring them valid, on a
consent to that effect signed by the mayor of the town: Held, that the
consent of the mayor could give no greater validity to the bonds than
they before had, and that the decree was not an adjudication of the
question of such validity. Ib.
5. In this case, certain negotiable bonds issued by the town of Dyersburg,
Tennessee, were held to have been issued without lawful authority.
Norton v. Dyersburg, 160.
6. Certain provisions of the statutes of Tennessee considered and held not
to confer power on the town of Dyersburg to issue the bonds in ques-
tion.
7. The grant to a municipal corporation of the power to subscribe for stock
in a railroad company does not carry with it the implied authority to
issue negotiable bonds therefor; and such is the view of the Supreme
Court of Tennessee. Ib.
8. In a suit at law against the town to recover on the bonds, no question
growing out of the liability of the town for the subscription to the
stock can be inquired into. Ib.
See CONTRACT, 2;
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA;
EQUITY.
1. The auditor of Cuyahoga County, Ohio, fixed the taxable value of shares
in a national bank at 60 per cent of their true value in money, in ac-
cordance with the practice adopted for the valuation of other moneyed
capital of individuals ir. the counties and State, and transmitted the
same to the State Board of Equalization for incorporated banks.
That board increased the valuation to 65 per cent, and this value,
being certified back to the auditor, was placed by him on the tax list
without a corresponding change being made in the valuation of other
moneyed capital of individuals. Held, that this was such a discrimi-
nation as is forbidden by § 5219 of the Revised Statutes of the United
States. Whitbeck v. Mercantile Bank, 193.
2. The statutes of Ohio regulating assessments for taxation allow an
owner of moneyed capital other than shares in a national bank to
have a deduction equal to his bona fide indebtedness made from the
amount of the assessment of the value of such moneyed capital; but
they make no provision for a similar deduction from the assessed value
of shares in a national bank, and provide no means by which such
a deduction may be obtained. Held: (1) That the owners of such
shares are entitled to have a deduction of their indebtedness made
from its assessed value as in the case of other moneyed capital; and (2)
that the right to it is not lost by not making a demand for it until the
entire process of the appraisement and equalization of the value of the
shares for taxation is completed, and the tax duplicate is delivered to
the treasurer for collection. Ib.
3. The laws of Ohio regulating the taxation of shares in national banks
considered.
NEGLIGENCE.
See COURT And Jury, 1.
See CORPORATION, 3;
WRIT OF ERROR, 2.
1. Letters-patent No. 243,674, granted to James Forncrook, June 28, 1881,
for an "improvement in sectional honey-frames," on an application
filed May 13, 1879, are invalid, for want of novelty. Forncrook v.
Root, 176.
2. The claim of the patent, namely, "As a new article of manufacture, a
blank for honey-frames formed of a single piece of wood, having
transverse angular grooves c, longitudinal groove d, and recesses b, all
arranged in the manner shown and described," is not infringed by a
blank which does not contain the longitudinal groove, or any substi-
tute or equivalent for it. Ib.
3. A patent for a bushing, or tapering ring of metal, for the bungs of
casks, with a screw-thread on its outer surface, and with a notched
flange at the edge, so as to enable the bushing to be forced into place
by a wrench having a projection to fit the notch, was reissued, nearly
seven years afterwards, for a bushing without any notch. Held, that
the reissue was void. Cornell v. Weidner, 261.
4. Claims 1 and 2 of letters-patent No. 281,640, granted to Moses Mosler,
July 17, 1883, for an improvement in fire-proof safes, namely, "1. An
angle bar for safe-frames, consisting substantially as before set forth,
of a right-angled iron bar, one of the sides of which is cut away, leav-
ing a curve facing the uncut side, whereby said uncut side may be
bent to bear upon said curve to form a rounded corner.
2. An angle
bar for safe-frames, consisting, substantially as before set forth, of a
right-angled iron bar, one of the sides of which is cut away, with
curved cuts meeting a right-angled cut, whereby the uncut side may
be bent to form rounded corners," and the claim of letters-patent No.
283,136 granted to Moses Mosler, August 14, 1883, for an improvement
in bending angle irons, namely, "The herein described process of
bending angle irons, which consists in cutting away a portion of one
web by a cut which severs the two webs at their junction, for a dis-
tance equal to the arc of the corner to be bent, and removes sufficient
of metal in front of the single part of the uncut web to permit the
same to bend to the desired angle and to insure the edges of the open-
ing meeting to form a close joint as the bar is bent, substantially as
shown and described," are invalid. Mosler Safe and Lock Co. v..Mos-
ler, 354.
5. After a patent is granted for an article described as made by causing it
to pass through a certain method of operation to produce it, the in-
ventor cannot afterwards, on an independent application, secure a
patent for the method or process of producing the identical article
covered by the previous patent, which article was described in that
patent as produced by the method or process sought to be covered by
taking out the second patent. Ib.
6. The claim of letters-patent No. 273,585 granted to Moses Mosler,
March 6, 1883, for an improvement in fire-proof safes, being for the
combination, in a fire-proof safe, of the frames, the sheet metal cover,
bent around the top sides and lower corners, with projecting metal
bars, and removable bottom plate, substantially as described, and
claim 3 of letters-patent No. 281,640, granted to Moses Mosler, July
17, 1883, for an improvement in fire-proof safes, namely, "3. In a
safe, the combination of the front and back frames, formed of single
bent angle bars, having one side cut away to leave curved ends, upon
which the uncut side is bent to form rounded corners, and a metal
sheet, E, bent around and secured to said frames to form the top end
sides of the safe, substantially as described," are invalid. Ib.
7. Claim 1 of letters-patent No. 140,250 granted to James D. Cusenbary
and James A. Mars, June 24, 1873, for an "improvement in ore-stamp
feeders," namely, "The feeding cylinder I, mounted upon the movable
timber H H, substantially as and for the purpose above described," is
a claim only for making the timbers movable, by mounting them upon
rollers, and does not involve a patentable invention. Hendy v. Golden
State and Miners Iron Works, 370.
8. The defence of non-patentability can be availed of without setting it
up in an answer.
9. There is no patentable combination, but merely an aggregation of the
rollers and the feeding cylinder. lb.
10. The specification requires the feeding cylinder to have chambers or
depressions, and claim 1 does not cover a cylinder with a smooth sur-
face not formed into chambers.
11. A patent for a lead-holding tube of a pencil, having at the lower end
two or more longitudinal slots, a screw-thread inside, and a clamping-
sleeve outside, each part of which, as well as the combination of two
or more slots with the sleeve, or of a single slot with the screw-thread,
has been previously used in such tubes, is void for want of invention.
Holland v. Shipley, 396.
12. Claim 1 of letters-patent No. 154,989, granted to Jacob O. Joyce, Sep-
tember 15, 1874, for an improvement in lifting-jacks, namely, "A
pawl for lever-jack with two or more teeth, and adapted to move in
inclined slots, grooves, or guides formed in the frame, substantially as
described," must be construed as limited to a pawl which acts wholly
by gravity, and not at all by a spring, to press it against the teeth of
the ratchet-bar. Joyce v. Chillicothe Foundry, 557.
13. Such claim is not infringed by a jack in which a spring is used to press
the pawl against the teeth of the ratchet-bar, and in which there are
no slots, guides or grooves formed in the frame, to guide the pawl.
lb.
14. Claim 1 of reissued letters-patent No. 6990, granted March 14, 1876, to
Thomas R. Bailey, Jr., for an "improvement in hydrants," namely,
"In combination with a hydrant or fire-plug, a detached and surround-
ing casing C, said casing adapted to have an independent up and
down motion sufficient to receive the entire movement imparted by
the upheaval of the surrounding earth by freezing, without derange-
ment or disturbance of the hydrant or plug proper, substantially as
shown," is invalid, as being an unlawful expansion of the original
patent. Flower v. Detroit, 563.
15. The drawing of the original patent was materially altered, and new
matter was introduced into the specification of the reissue. Ib.
16. The decision in Parker & Whipple Co. v. Yale Clock Co., 123 U. S. 87,
applied to this case. Ib.
17. In the present case the reissue was not applied for until nearly eight
years after the original patent was granted, and the reissue was taken
with the manifest intention of covering, by an enlarged claim, struc-
tures which in the meantime had gone into extensive public use, and
which were not covered by any claim of the original patent. Ib.
18. Claim 3 of the reissue, namely, "The combination of the hydrant or
fire-plug pipe A, supply pipe B, valve D, casing C, and stuffing-box H,
substantially as and for the purpose shown," is either an unlawful ex-
pansion, in regard to the casing, of what is found in the original
patent, or, if construed narrowly, in regard to the casing, is antici-
pated, on the question of novelty. lb.
POLICE COURT.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, A, 12.
|