S. E. 808, 38 L. R. A. 239, holding delivery to third party for grantee, without reservation, is complete as to grantee, although without latter's knowledge.

Trusts.- Where settler appoints trustee and records trust deed, delivery is complete, although he retains possession of deed, p. 193. Cited and applied in Linton v. Brown, 20 Fed. 467, holding formal sealing and delivery sufficient to make trust deed operative without actual delivery; Frank v. Heiner, 117 N. C. 82, 23 S. E. 42, holding registration of deed constitutes delivery in absence of evidence to rebut presumption.

Distinguished in Loring v. Hildreth, 170 Mass. 331, 64 Am. St. Rep. 304, 49 N. E. 653, 40 L. R. A. 130, holding execution and recording of undelivered trust deed not a sufficient declaration of trust where deed shows no intention to create trust, except in manner therein provided.

Trusts.

Deed by husband and wife of former's property to trus tee in trust for wife's separate use, recorded by husband, but retained in his possession, creates valid trust in wife's favor, although trustee was ignorant of deed, p. 196.

Cited in Loring v. Whitney, 167 Mass. 552, 553, 46 N. E. 58, holding recorded trust deed in wife's favor, although trustee releases to grantor, beneficiaries joining, constitutes incumbrance on title. See note in 34 Am. St. Rep. 197.

Miscellaneous.- Partee v. Thomas, 11 Fed. 773, generally.

21 Wall. 196-205, 22 L. 612, GARRISON v. CITY OF NEW YORK. Constitutional law. Judgment founded upon transaction lacking assent of parties, is not a contract within constitutional prohibition of laws impairing contract obligations, p. 203.

Cited and principle applied in Louisiana v. Mayor of New Orleans, 109 U. 8. 288, 27 L. 937, 3 S. Ct. 213, holding denial to city of right to levy sufficient taxes to pay judgment for damages from mob not impairment of contract obligation; Freeland v. Williams, 131 U. S. 414, 33 L. 197, 9 S. Ct. 766, holding West Virginia constitutional provision that property should not be taken on execution of judgments for acts of warfare, does not impair contract obligations when applied to judgment founded on tort committed as act of warfare; Morley v. Lake Shore Ry., 146 U. S. 170, 36 L. 929, 13 S. Ct. 57, holding legislative alteration of rate of interest payable on judgments previously obtained, no impairment of contract obligations; McAfee v. Covington, 71 Ga. 273, 51 Am. Rep. 264, holding judgment on tort not a contract within Constitution; State v. Mayor of New Orleans, 32 La. Ann. 717, holding denial of city's right to levy tax to pay judgment founded on tort not impairment of contract obligation; Mexican National Ry. v. Mussette, 86 Tex. 715, 26 S. W. 1077, 24 L. R. A. 644, holding obligations protected

from impairment are those arising from agreement of parties, not from imposed duties; Peerce v. Kitzmiller, 19 W. Va. 574, holding constitutional prohibition of execution on property by reason of Judgments, based on acts of warfare in Civil War, constitutional, such judgments not being contracts; Denver & N. O. R. R. v. Lamborn, 8 Colo. 386, 8 Pac. 586, acceptance of statutory privilege of possession pending condemnation proceedings, constitutes no contract; dissenting opinion in Bettman v. Crowley, 19 Wash. 220, 53 Pac. 58, 40 L. R. A. 821, majority holding invalid an act providing for duration of judgment liens valid as applied to existing judgment not based on contract. See also 79 Am. Dec. 495, note.

Courts.- Construction of State statute by highest State court, and its decision as to powers of State court to correct or set aside its judgments for mistake, fraud or irregularity, are binding upon Supreme Court in action under statute, p. 203.

Eminent domain.- In eminent domain proceedings to condemn private property for public street, there is no contractual relation between city and property-owner, p. 203.

Eminent domain.— Proceedings to ascertain benefits or losses to owner of property taken for street, and to estimate compensation, are in nature of inquest and under State control, exclusively, p. 204.

Cited in New Orleans, etc., R. R. v. Drake, 60 Miss. 626, holding provision for determination of amount due owners as compensation, by appraisers appointed by court, constitutional; People v. Adirondack Ry., 160 N. Y. 238, 54 N. E. 692, holding statute (Laws 1897, chap. 220) providing for condemnation of land for park, not authorization of seizure without due process.

Eminent domain. It is State's duty, in condemnation for public use, to see that estimates for compensation are just, not only to property-owner, but to public, p. 204.

Cited in Searl v. School District, 133 U. S. 562, 33 L. 746, 10 8. Ct. 377, holding compensation on acquisition of property for public use must be just to public and to owner.

Eminent domain.- State has power to vacate proceedings to estimate benefit or loss to property-owner on condemnation for street, for irregularity or fraud, or to make finding on inquest subject to approval of court, or to deny appeal from decision of court thereon, provided parties be secured a fair hearing, p. 204.

Eminent domain. Until property condemned for street is actually taken, and compensation made, State's power over matter is not ended, and title does not pass, p. 204.

Cited and principle applied in Bauman v. Ross, 167 U. S. 599, 42 L. 291, 17 S. Ct. 985, holding title to land appropriated for highway under act March 2, 1893, did not pass payment of damages;

Chicago v. Barbian, 80 Ill. 488, holding binding judgment conferring present right to take property cannot be given until pay. ment of compensation; Brokaw v. Terre Haute, 97 Ind. 454, holding condemnation proceedings may be abandoned, although city has taken possession; Manion v. Louisville, etc., R. R., 90 Ky. 496, 14 S. W. 533, holding corporation may abandon purpose of taking condemned property prior to payment of damages to owner.

Constitutional law. No such vested rights in a judgment exists in party in whose favor it is rendered as to preclude its re-examination and vacation, even though appeal from it be not allowed, p. 205

Followed in Freeland v. Williams, 131 U. S. 414, 33 L. 197, 9 S. Ct. 766, holding judgment on tort not vested right precluding reexamination.

Constitutional law. New York act of 1871, relating to widening of Broadway, and authorizing vacation by Supreme Court of unappealable order of 1870, confirming estimate of commissioners as to compensation of property-owners, providing estimate contain error or irregularity, does not impair contractual obligation, p. 205. Cited and applied in Essex Public Road v. Skinkle, 140 U. 8. 340, 35 L. 448, 11 S. Ct. 792, holding assessment not a contract, even as to third parties; Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U. S. 478, 19 S. Ct. 734, holding grant of new remedy by way of review, not illegal interference of legislature in judicial proceedings; generally in Attorney-General v. Jochim, 99 Mich. 373, 41 Am. St. Rep. 619, 58 N. W. 615, 23 L. R. A. 705, holding State constitutional provision empowering governor to summarily remove State officers for malfeasance not in conflict with constitutional prohibition of deprivation of property without due process of law.

21 Wall. 205-230, 22 L. 577, LITTLEFIELD v. PERRY.

Patents. Grant of patent, reserving right to use certain applications thereof, grantor to sue infringers in his own name, and defend all suits for infringement against grantee, with agreement for forfeiture for non-payment of royalty, is an assignment, permitting assignee to sue in Circuit Court, p. 222.

Followed in Perry v. Littlefield, 17 Blatchf. 273, F. C. 11,008, a suit between same parties and on like facts.

Patents. Action for infringement against patentee by assignee of exclusive rights in certain territory, involves construction of patent, and may be brought in Circuit Court, p. 222.

Patents. Fact that construction of contract between patentee and assignee is involved, will not oust jurisdiction of Circuit Court in suit for infringement, p. 222.

Cited in Lilienthal v. Washburn, 4 Woods, 68, 8 Fed. 709, holding Circuit Court not ousted of jurisdiction because defendant claimed

right under contract to manufacture; Celluloid Co. v. Goodyear Dental Co., 18 Blatchf. 388, F. Q. 2,543, as to jurisdiction of Circuit Court.

Distinguished in Hartell v. Tilghman, 99 U. S. 551, 25 L. 359, denying Federal jurisdiction where construction of contract only, not of patent, was involved, parties being citizens of same State; Williams v. Star Sand Co., 35 Fed. 371, where controversy over contract between patentee and assignee did not involve construction of patent.

Patents,-Mere licensee of patentee cannot sue stranger for infringement in his own name, p. 223.

Cited and relied upon in Paper-Bag Cases, 105 U. S. 771, 26 L 961, holding rights of licensee of patent on infringement thereof must be enforced in name of patentee; Birdsell v. Shallol, 112 U. S. 486, 28 L. 769, 5 S. Ct. 245, holding action at law for benefit of licensee must be brought in name of patentee alone in equity may be brough by patentee and licensee together; Waterman V. Mackenzie, 138 U. S. 255, 34 L. 925, 11 S. Ct. 335, holding rights of licensee on infringement must be enforced through patentee; Nelsen v. McMann, 16 Blatchf. 148, F. C. 10,109, holding mere licensee cannot sue in equity for infringement without joining patentee as plaintiff; Hammond v. Hunt, 11 Fed. Cas. 393, holding both licensee and patentee necessary parties in suit for infringement; Gamewell Fire-Alarm Co. v. Brooklyn, 14 Fed. 256, sustaining demurrer for non-joinder of patentee in action by licensee for infringement; Bray v. Denning, 56 Fed. 1019, holding suit for infringement must be brought in name of owner of patent.

Distinguished in Blair v. Lippincott Glass Co., 52 Fed. 227, holding joint action for infringement not maintainable by patentee and licensee whose license conveys no exclusive monopoly.

Patents. Where patentee is himself infringer, licensee may sue in his own name, p. 223.

Cited and applied in Stanley Rule Co. v. Bailey, 14 Blatchf. 512, F. C. 13,287, sustaining bill for infringement, by licensee against patentee in former's name; Rapp v. Kelling, 41 Fed. 792, holding licensee may maintain action in his own name against patentee for infringement; Adriance v. McCormick Harvesting Co., 55 Fed. 290, sustaining right of action by licensee, one of several defendants being patentee; Waterman v. Shipman, 55 Fed. 986, 14 U. S. App. 312, holding licensee, with exclusive right to manufacture, may maintain equitable action against patentee for infringement; Mayer v. Hardy, 127 N. Y. 131, 27 N. E. 838, holding licensee may, in his own name, sue assignee of patentee for infringement.

Equity, regarding substance rather than form, will grant appropriate relief where it has jurisdiction of parties, whether they come as plaintiff or defendant, p. 223.

Cited in Brush-Swan Electric Co. v. Thompson-Houston Co., 48 Fed. 226, holding equity will place parties in their real positions in controversy; Brush Elect. Co. v. Elect. Imp. Co., 49 Fed. 74, exclusive licensee of patent may sue infringer in his own name, though patentee unwilling.

Patents. Where assignee of patent assigns to A., and A. reas signs to said assignee, who, between assignment to A. and latter's reassignment, assigns to B., title is in B., p. 224.

Patents. Recorded assignment of perfected invention prior to Issuance of patent carries with it patent when issued, p. 225.

Cited in Brush Electric Co. v. California Electric Co., 52 Fed. 963, 7 U. S. App. 409, holding assignment of patent prior to its issuance passes title to patent when issued.

Patents. Reissues are not patents for new inventions, but amendments of old patents, p. 225.

Patents. Reissue obtained with consent of assignee of patent inures to his benefit, p. 223.

Patents. Assignee of patent has election to accept or reject reissue obtained without his consent by patentee, p. 225.

Patents. Assignment of imperfect invention, with all improvements which inventor may make, is equivalent in equity to assignment of perfected result, p. 226.

Cited and applied in Aspinwall Mfg. Co. v. Gill, 32 Fed. 700, hold ing assignment of patent, together with improvements which might be thereafter made, valid; Regan Vapor-Engine Co. v. Pacific Gas Engine Co., 47 Fed. 513, holding such assignment conveys patentee's right in his future improvements; Westinghouse Air-Brake Co. v. Chicago Brake Co., 85 Fed. 791, 792, 793, 796, holding contract assigning patent and all future improvements thereon made by patentee, not against public policy; McFarland v. Stanton Mfg. Co., 53 N. J. Eq. 651, 51 Am. St. Rep. 649, 33 Atl. 963, holding assignment of patent and future improvements thereon valid in equity; Kane v. Lodor, 56 N. J. Eq. 274, 38 Atl. 969, holding in sales of personalty, after-acquired title of vendor passes to grantee without express covenant of warranty.

Modified in Independent Electric Co. v. Jeffrey Mfg. Co., 76 Fed. 984, holding only improvements on particular machine patented pass by assignment of patent and future improvements. Distinguished in Regan Vapor-Engine Co. v. Pacific Gas-Engine Co., 49 Fed. 70, 7 U. S. App. 73, assignment of future inventions in general merely gives assignee right to compel assignment, subject prior assignments to innocent purchasers.

Patents. Where obligation exists to convey patent at once equity will oftentimes proceed as if conveyance had actually beer made, p. 227.