stituent parts of shoes, not patentable; Butler v. Steckel, 137 U. S. 29, 34 L. 585, 11 S. Ct. 28, holding device to cut and shape dough by single die, not patentable; International Tooth Crown Co. v. Gaylord, 140 U. S. 62, 35 L. 350, 11 S. Ct. 719, holding device for performing ordinary dental operations with increased speed, unpatentable; Ansonia Brass Co. v. Electrical Supply Co., 144 U. S. 19, 36 L. 329, 12 S. Ct. 604, holding new mode of making insulators, consisting of different method of applying paint, unpatentable; Lovell Mfg. Co. v. Cary, 147 U. S. 634, 37 L. 311, 13 S. Ct. 476, holding application of old method of treating wire to new use, not patentable; Grant v. Walter, 148 U. S. 553, 37 L. 557, 13 S. Ct. 701, holding discovery of new use for old device in thread winding, unpatentable; Wright v. Yuengling, 155 U. S. 54, 39 L. 67, 15 S. Ct. 4, where device merely combined two well-known devices to accomplish same result; Risdon Locomotive Works v. Medart, 158 U. S. 82, 39 L. 904, 15 S. Ct. 750, holding device differing from like former articles only in superior workmanship, unpatentable; Sperry Mfg. Co. v. Owens, 96 Fed. 977, U. S. App. Sperry fanningmill patent, void for want of novelty; Warren Co. v. Rosenblatt, 80 Fed. 542, 53 U. S. App. 241, holding idea of handbag adapted to bicycle carrier, not patentable; Sawyer v. Miller, 4 Woods, 474, 12 Fed. 727, holding improvement of cotton-gins, merely combining former devices, unpatentable; McDonald v. McLean, 13 Sawy. 638, 38 Fed. 330, where complainant's device was merely an improvement in manufacture of well-known tools; Boykins v. Baker, 4 Hughes, 289, 9 Fed. 704, holding use of dissolved, instead of ground, bone for fertilizer, not patentable; Alcott v. Young, 16 Blatchf. 138, F. C. 149, holding device consisting of combination of fire-lighter, with ordinary kindling wood, unpatentable; Spill v. Celluloid Mfg. Co., 22 Blatchf. 450, 21 Fed. 637, holding process of bleaching xyloidin by dehydrated alcohol, not patentable, for lack of invention; Excelsior Needle Co. v. Union Needle Co., 23 Blatchf. 152, 32 Fed. 224, holding patent void where only novelty was result of functions of manufacturing machinery; New York Bung Co. v. Doelger, 23 Blatchf. 171, 23 Fed. 194, holding use of different materials in manufacturing old article, not patentable; United States Bung Co. v. Independent Bung Co., 24 Blatchf. 411, 81 Fed. 80, where device was an adaption of a foreign patent; Cone v. Morgan Envelope Co., 6 Fed. Cas. 269, where device consisted merely in changing spaces between ogee lines on writing paper; Putnam v. Yerrington, 20 Fed. Cas. 93, holding change of materials in making old article, not patentable idea; Flower v. Rayner, 5 Fed. 800, where result obtained by former patent was produced by use of an equivalent; Theberath v. Rubber, etc., Harness Co., 15 Fed. 251, where alleged improvement in covering harness mountings was a more extended application of old patent; McMurray v. Miller, 16 Fed. 476, holding improvement in tool, due merely to

mechanical skill, not patentable; Wood v. Packer, 17 Fed. 652, holding law does not extend to better results produced by mere mechanical skill; Leonard v. Lovell, 29 Fed. 314, holding refrigerator with removable, instead of upward swinging wall, no new invention; Blumenthal v. Burrell, 43 Fed. 670, holding new and purer form of known chemical, unpatentable; Kane v. Huggins Cracker Co., 44 Fed. 291, refusing to restrain infringement of patent for candy making, based on mere mechanical skill; Murphy v. Trenton Rubber Co., 45 Fed. 571, holding method of rubber stretching, resulting in difference in degree only, unpatentable; Williams v. Goodyear Rubber-Shoe Co., 49 Fed. 249, holding conception for bellows flap in overshoes, not exercise of invention in view of then state of the art; Fox v. Perkins, 52 Fed. 213, 6 U. S. App. 200, holding miter-cutting machine a mere improvement and not patentable as original idea; Caverley v. Deere, 52 Fed. 763, where machine differed from old type only in angle of cutters; Bonnell v. Stoll, 57 Fed. 397, holding claim to patent for spring bed, anticipated by prior patent with like functions; Newark Watch-Case Co. v. Wilmot, etc., Mfg. Co., 60 Fed. 617, holding patent for watchprotector void for want of originality; Electric Ry. Co. v. Jamaica, etc., Co., 61 Fed. 673, holding perfection of details of prior invention not patentable; Front-Rank Steel Co. v. Wrought-Iron Range Co., 63 Fed. 997, holding furnace constructed on same principles as former article, with improvements in degree, unpatentable; Wilgus v. Germain, 72 Fed. 777, 44 U. S. App. 369, sprinkler delivering mist instead of drops, and for other uses, unpatentable; Brill v. Wilson, 75 Fed. 1004, holding patent consisting of use of iron in place of wood car-panels, void; Baldwin v. Kresl, 76 Fed. 826, 46 U. S. App. 511, holding mere diversity in form of cigar-mold unpatentable; Schwarzwalder v. Detroit, 77 Fed. 891, holding production of cheaper and better article, all parts being taken from prior inventions, unpatentable; Birmingham Cement Mfg. Co. v. Gates Iron Works, 78 Fed. 355, 41 U. S. App. 201, holding combination of old parts, without new result, unpatentable; Gibbon v. Lower SoleRounder Co., 79 Fed. 327, 39 U. S. App. 554, holding leather-cutter unpatentable for lack of originality; Sohner v. Favorite Stove Co., 84 Fed. 187, 54 U. S. App. 404, holding use of curved plates on stove-sides mere extension of prior idea; Union Gas-Engine Co. v. Doak, 88 Fed. 90, holding adaptation of prior device to new engine a change involving mere mechanical skill; Newton Mfg. Co. v. Wilgus, 90 Fed. 485, affirming Wilgus v. Germaine, supra; Falk Mfg. Co. v. Missouri R. Co., 91 Fed. 158, holding application of known welding process to new use unpatentable; Lettelier v. Mann, 91 Fed. 911, 914, holding change of location of parts in known machine, not patentable invention.

Cited, but application denied, in Gottfried v. Best Brewing Co., 10 Fed. Cas. 852, holding apparatus for heating and pitching casks

sufficiently inventive application of old principles; Zane v. Peck. 30 Fed. Cas. 908, holding device so changing old idea as to give it practical utility for first time, patentable; New York Belting Co. v. Magowan, 27 Fed. 364, holding fact that patented device went immediately into general use, pregnant proof of novelty and usefulness. Distinguished in Dick v. Henry, 75 Fed. 389, holding improvement patentable because of adaption to new uses and performance of new results.

21 Wall. 119-123, 22 L. 592, CITY OF SACRAMENTO v. FOWLE. Municipal corporations. Under process act of California, providing that summons in suits against corporations be served upon presidents or other heads thereof, service upon president of board of trustees, the general executive of city government, is valid service upon city, p. 122.

Distinguished in Young v. Town of Dexter, 18 Fed. 208, holding service on town clerk not proper service; Watertown v. Robinson, 09 Wis. 237, 34 N. W. 142, holding service on other officers, in mayor's absence, not binding, under Wisconsin statute.

Appeal and error.— Question of liability of city upon bonds sued on cannot be first raised upon appeal to Supreme Court, p. 123. Erroneously cited in Schofield v. Chicago, etc., R. R., 8 Fed. 488.

21 Wall. 123-130, 22 L. 509, WATSON v. BONDURANT.

Mortgages.- Under Louisiana statute requiring seizure of land In order to render foreclosure sale valid (except in certain parishes), there must be actual seizure by sheriff, although possessor need not be actually turned out, and sale under constructive seizure is vold, p. 126.

Cited in Bondurant v. Watson, 103 U. S. 283, 26 L. 449, referring to former appeal of same case; 33 Am. Dec. 698, note.

Distinguished in Price v. Evans, 94 U. S. 10. 24 L. 41, upholding title of foreclosure purchaser in possession for statutory prescriptive period, although sheriff failed to make actual seizure.

Mortgages. While, under Louisiana practice called "fact de non alienando," plaintiff in foreclosure is relieved from joining mortgagor's vendees, latter may set up failure of former to follow essential forms in making sale, p. 129.

Cited in Nalle v. Young, 160 U. S. 643, 40 L. 566, 16 S. Ct. 427, holding plaintiff in foreclosure need not join subsequent mortgagee under above practice; De L'Isle v. Succession of Moss, 34 La. Ann. 167, application vague.

Execution. Sheriff's return to fieri facias unauthenticated by his signature presents no record evidence of his acts, p. 130.

21 Wall. 130-138, 22 L. 588, DUPASSEUR v. ROCHEREAU.

Removal of causes. Where State court refuses to give effect to judgment of United States court rendered upon point in dispute and with proper jurisdiction, case may be removed to Federal court as involving a right or title derived under authority exercised under United States, p. 184.

Cited and applied in Embry v. Palmer, 107 U. S. 9, 27 L. 348, 2 S. Ct. 30, where State court enjoined actions on judgment of Federal court on ground of fraud in securing same; Pittsburgh, etc., Ry. v. Loan and Trust Co., 172 U. S. 507, 19 S. Ct. 244, upholding Supreme Court's power to inquire whether State court gave full force and effect to decree of Federal court.

Distinguished in Carson v. Dunham, 121 U. S. 428, 30 L. 994, 7 S. Ct. 1033, holding suit not removable merely because based on Federal judgment; Baltimore, etc., R. R. v. Hopkins, 130 U. 8. 222, 32 L. 912, 9 S. Ct. 507, drawing distinction between denial of validity of authority and denial of right claimed thereunder, collecting cases; Giles v. Little, 134 U. S. 649, 33 L. 1063, 10 S. Ct. 625, where Federal judgment was only on demurrer; Winona, etc., A. R. v. Plainview, 143 U. S. 390, 36 L. 199, 12 S. Ct. 537, where Federal suit settled rights of other parties than those to State action; Gay v. Lyons, 3 Woods, 60, F. C. 5,281, holding claim of title under sale upon fieri facias from Federal court, validity of which is not questioned, not ground for removal; Hyatt v. McBurney, 18 S. C. 208, 210, 211, where decree of Federal court expressly held parties in State action not bound.

Removal of causes. Where courts of one State refuse to give effect to decisions of courts of another, case may be removed to United States courts, p. 134.

Cited in Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U. S. 666, 36 L. 1127, 13 S. Ct. 227, where Maryland court refused to entertain bill based on decree of New York court, in action on penalty; Staunton v. Goshor, 94 Fed. 60, holding Federal court bound by decision of State court in same case, that papers were subject of larceny.

Courts. Where Federal court, solely by reason of citizenship of parties, acquired jurisdiction over case involving only local questions, and decided same under State laws, its judgment has no higher sanctity than that of a State court in a like case, p. 135.

Cited and applied in Crescent Live-Stock Co. v. Butchers' Union, 120 U. S. 146, 30 L. 617, 7 S. Ct. 475, holding it within Federal jurisdiction to determine whether due effect of like State court decree has been accorded Federal decree; Metcalf v. Watertown, 153 U. S. 676, 38 L. 864, 14 S. Ct. 949, holding Wisconsin statute limiting right of action on judgments, applicable to those of Federal court sitting in State; Pittsburgh, etc., Ry. v. Loan and Trust Co., 172 U. S. 510, 19 S. Ct. 244, holding decree of Federal court following

1

State laws, not binding on one not party thereto, in suit in State court; Stevens v. Central Bank, 144 N. Y. 60, 39 N. E. 71, enjoining, on discovery of fraud, proceedings under decree of Federal court, assuming jurisdiction because of citizenship.

Cited, but not applied, in Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Tennessee, 161 U. 8. 185, 40 L. 664, 16 S. Ct. 475, holding failure of State court to give effect to its own judgments, involves no Federal question.

Judgments. No persons are bound by judgments or decrees who are not parties thereto, p. 136.

Cited in Ridings v. Johnson, 128 U. S. 225, 32 L. 405, 9 S. Ct. 76, holding prior mortgagee not bound by subsequent executory process to which he was not a party; Sheffield Coal Co. v. Newman, 77 Fed. 793, 41 U. S. App. 766, holding decree ordering sale to satisfy certain receiver's certificates does not divest liens of certificate holders not parties thereto.

Actions. In proceedings in rem all having any interest in the thing are deemed parties, and may intervene, and if, after publication of notice, they fail to do so, they are considered as having ac quiesced in the exercise of jurisdiction, p. 136.

Cited in Nalle v. Young, 160 U. S. 643, 40 L. 566, 16 S. Ct. 427, holding subsequent mortgagor not necessary party in foreclosure by prior mortgagee under Louisiana fact de non alienando.

Judgments. In refusing to hold Federal court foreclosure proceedings by subsequent mortgagee not binding in suit by prior incumbrancer not party to such Federal proceeding, State court does not refuse Federal decision its due and legal effect, p. 138.

21 Wall. 138-147, 22 L. 609, VERMILYE v. ADAMS EXPRESS CO. Bills and notes.- United States treasury notes, issued under act of March 5, 1865, are negotiable promissory notes, p. 144.

Cited and principle applied in Cooke v. United States, 91 U. s. 396, 23 L. 242, holding rules applicable to one accepting forged paper purporting to be his, applicable to government accepting forged treasury notes; State v. Clinton, 28 La. Ann. 227, upholding title to levee bonds purchased in open market before maturity; State v. Mayor, 49 La. Ann. 1770, 22 So. 1016, holding municipal water bonds within rules governing negotiable commercial paper; Brown v. Bokee, 53 Md. 165, holding United States coupon bonds negotiable instruments and choses in action; Dexter v. Phillips, 121 Mass. 183, 23 Am. Rep. 266, holding coupons from United States bonds separately, negotiable; United States v. North Carolina, 136 U. S. 220, 34 L. 340, 10 S. Ct. 924, holding word "redeemable" on State bonds meant "payable" for purpose of stopping interest; Bangor Electric Co. v. Robinson, 52 Fed. 521, application very vague; Jackson v. Meyers, 43 Md. 465, holding note of building association valid negotiable instrument, irrespective of seal; dissenting opinion in State