Actions for price of patent article or on license to sell are triable in State court.

Approved in Rahley v. Columbia Phonograph Co., 122 Fed. 623, 58 C. C. A. 639, holding removal of suit to prevent violation of contract for sale of patent articles, without questioning validity of patent, depends solely on diverse citizenship; Pratt v. Hawes, 118 Wis. 613, 95 N. W. 968, holding State court having jurisdiction of action for price of patent and machine manufactured thereunder may determine validity of patent.

Jurisdiction of State court with respect to action involving patent rights. Note, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 800.

Owner of equitable title to patent can sue.

Approved in Wooster v. Crane & Co., 147 Fed. 516, 77 C. C. A. 211, owner of equitable title to patent can sue in own name where holder of legal title is infringer.

Federal jurisdiction of bill for infringement is not ousted by question of license contract.

Approved in Victor Talking Mach. Co. v. The Fair, 123 Fed. 426, 61 C. C. A. 58, holding suit for infringement of patent is of Federal cognizance though validity of license contract be also involved; Wooster v. Crane & Co., 147 Fed. 516, 77 C. C. A. 211, complaint in suit to enjoin infringement of patent, setting forth contract to show complainant's title, does not oust Federal jurisdiction; Harrington v. Atlantic etc. Tel. Co., 143 Fed. 330, 337, Circuit Court has jurisdiction of suit determining ownership of patent right where infringement of patent is also. issue.

Bill to enforce or set aside contract, though contract connected with patent, is not suit under patent laws.

Approved in Briggs v. United Shoe Mach. Co., 239 U. S. 49, 60 L. Ed. 139, 36 Sup. Ct. 7, suit for royalties on patent is not suit arising under patent laws; Healy v. Sea Gull Specialty Co., 237 U. S. 480, 59 L. Ed. 1058, 35 Sup. Ct. 658, District Court has jurisdiction of suit for infringement, though plaintiff also relies on contract as furnishing mode for ascertaining damages; The Fair v. Kohler Die etc. Co., 228 U. S. 25, 26, 57 L. Ed. 717, 718, 33 Sup. Ct. 410, where plaintiff relies on infringement, jurisdiction of Federal court cannot be defeated by matter set up in answer; Carl Laemmle Music Co. v. Stern, 219 Fed. 536, 135 C. C. A. 284, suit on contract to transfer song held not to arise under copyright laws; Harrington v. Atlantic etc. Tel. Co., 185 Fed. 496, 498, 107 C. C. A. 593, holding bill for reconveyance of assigned patents not maintainable as one for infringement; Lefkowitz v. Foster Hose Supporter Co., 161 Fed. 371, 375, dismissing bill on ground that gravamen of suit was breach of license contract; Forster v. Brown Hoisting Machinery Co., 266 Ill. 296, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 795, 107 N. E. 592, holding State court had no jurisdiction of suit based on claim that plaintiff

1079

FOK YUNG YO v. UNITED STATES. 185 U. S. 296-305

was author of invention which another had appropriated; Marshall Engine Co. v. New Marshall Engine Co., 199 Mass. 551, 85 N. E. 742, holding State court had jurisdiction of suit on assignment of patent where no question of infringement was raised by evidence; Manning v. Galland-Henning Pneumatic Malting Drum Mfg. Co., 141 Wis. 203, 18 Ann. Cas. 976, 124 N. W. 292, in action under Federal statute by assignee of patent for damages for infringement, court may inquire into validity of assignment to determine plaintiff's right to sue; dissenting opinion in Henry v. A. B. Dick Co., 224 U. S. 60, 61, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 880, 56 L. Ed. 668, 669, 32 Sup. Ct. 364, majority holding suit for infringement which turns on scope of patent and privileges of patentee thereunder presents case arising under patent laws; dissenting opinion in People v. Metropolitan Surety Co., 211 N. Y. 123, 105 N. E. 104, majority holding liability on government contractor's bond could only be enforced in suit in Federal court, and could not be asserted in insolvency proceedings in State courts.

Distinguished in Henry v. A. B. Dick Co., 224 U. S. 15, 16, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 880, 56 L Ed. 651, 32 Sup. Ct. 364, suit for infringement which turns on scope of patent and privileges of patentee thereunder, presents case arising under patent law.

Right to waive tort and sue in assumpsit. Note, 184 Am. St. Rep. 195.

185 U. S. 296-305, 46 L. Ed. 917, 22 Sup. Ct. 686, FOK YUNG YO v. UNITED STATES.

Power to exclude or expel alions is vested in political departments of government to be regulated by treaty or act of Congress, and to be executed by executive authority according to such regulations.

Approved in Chuoco Tiaco v. Forbes, 228 U. S. 557, 57 L. Ed. 965, 33 Sup. Ct. 585, upholding statute of Philippine government for removal of aliens; The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U. S. 97, 99, 47 L. Ed. 724, 23 Sup. Ct. 613, 614, upholding power of Congress to delegate to executive officers, as Secretary of Treasury, power to cause deportation of immigrant within a year of entry; Lee Lung v. Patterson, 186 U. S. 175, 46 L. Ed. 1110, 22 Sup. Ct. 797, holding collector of customs does not lose jurisdiction to determine right of immigrant Chinese to land, by disregarding certificates held by them; Lee Gon Young v. United States, 185 U. S. 306, 46 L. Ed. 921, 22 Sup. Ct. 690, affirming order dismissing writ of habeas corpus obtained by Chinese ordered deported by customs inspector; In re Sing Tuck, 126 Fed. 389, holding under power to exclude aliens Congress may confer on immigration officers power to determine citizenship of aliens; United States v. Lue Yee, 124 Fed. 303, holding decision of proper customs officer adverse to right of Chinese to remain is conclusive in deportation proceedings; Looe Shee v. North, 170 Fed. 569, 570, 95 C. C. A. 646, arguendo.

Distinguished in Lavin v. Le Fevre, 125 Fed. 695, 60 C. C. A. 425, holding whether immigration officer proceeds according to law in deporting an alien is judicial question, inquired into on habeas corpus.

Government may limit privilege of transit.

Approved in Stratton v. Oceanic Steamship Co., 140 Fed. 833, 835, 72 C. C. A. 241, upholding regulation requiring ship's master to deposit head tax with collector to be refunded on showing that alien passed directly through country.

Regulations of Treasury Department made under statutes relating to admission of aliens have force of law.

Approved in In re Brefo, 217 Fed. 133, holding rules of Secretary of Labor under Naturalization Act had weight of law.

Distinguished in In re Pick, 209 Fed. 1000, certificate of admission by Department of Commerce and Labor not ineffective because not in particular form required by its rules.

Treasury Department's decision as to right of alien to enter is final, and not reviewable by the courts.

Approved in Pearson v. Williams, 202 U. S. 285, 286, 50 L. Ed. 1031, 1032, 26 Sup. Ct. 608, after alien held by immigration officer to have right to admission, Sceretary of Commerce can, within three years, direct rehearing, result of which is order for deportation; Sibray v. United States, 227 Fed. 2, 141 C. C. A. 555, decision of immigration officials that Chinaman having certificate of admission is entitled to remain in country is presumptively correct and burden is on United States to prove contrary (reversed); United States v. Hom Lim, 214 Fed. 463, certificate of admission of Chinese as person of excepted class is sufficient evidence of right to enter in absence of persuasive evidence to contrary; United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U. S. 261, 49 L. Ed. 1043, 25 Sup. Ct. 644, decision of Secretary of Commerce on appeal from decision of immigration officer denying admission to Chinese claiming citizenship, is final; United States v. Williams, 194 U. S. 290, 48 L. Ed. 984, 24 Sup. Ct. 719, upholding act of March 3, 1903, providing for exclusion of alien anarchists; United States v. Sing Tuck, 194 U. S. 167, 48 L. Ed. 920, 24 Sup. Ct. 621, prior to appeal to Secretary of Commerce Federal habeas corpus will not issue where alien denied right of error; United States v. Hung Chang, 134 Fed. 24, 67 C. C. A. 93, deportation proceeding, being of civil nature, admissions of defendant are admissible against him.

Distinguished in Hopkins v. Fachant, 130 Fed. 841, 65 C. C. A. 1, under Immigration Act of March 3, 1903, Secretary of Treasury has not power of deportation without giving alien hearing.

185 U. S. 306-307, 46 L. Ed. 921, 22 Sup. Ct. 690, LEE GON YUNG v. UNITED STATES.

Authority of the government in prescribing regulations of immigration is unqualified.

1081 FIDELITY MUT. LIFE ASSN. v. METTLER. 185 U. S. 308–336

Approved in Lee Lung v. Patterson, 186 U. S. 175, 46 L. Ed. 1110, 22 Sup. Ct. 797, holding collector of customs does not, by disregarding certificates held by Chinese under Exclusion Act, lose jurisdiction to determine right to enter; United States v. Lue Yee, 124 Fed. 303, holding decision of proper custom's officer adverse to right of Chinese to remain in this country is conclusive in subsequent deportation proceedings.

185 U. S. 308-336, 46 L. Ed. 922, 22 Sup. Ct. 662, FIDELITY MUTUAL LIFE ASSN. v. METTLER.

Where erroneously admitted evidence did not affect verdict, it is not cause for reversal.

Approved in Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Courtney, 186 U. S. 351, 46 L. Ed. 1199, 22 Sup. Ct. 837, holding error in excluding in action on indemnity bond of bank president cashier's certificate replying to surety company cured by proper charge to jury.

Statute directing that life and health insurance companies that shall default in payment of their policies shall pay twelve per cent damages, and reasonable attorney's fees is valid exercise of legislative power of State.

Approved in Atchison etc. Ry. Co. v. Vosburg, 238 U. S. 58, L. R. A. 1915E, 953, 59 L. Ed. 1200, 35 Sup. Ct. 675, upholding statute imposing penalties for failure of carriers and shippers to furnish cars or use cars when furnished; International Harvester Co. v. Missouri, 234 U. S. 211, 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 525, 58 L. Ed. 1282, 34 Sup. Ct. 859, statute prohibiting combinations is not void because applying to vendors of commodities and not of labor; Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v. Cohen, 234 U. S. 133, 136, 58 L. Ed. 1253, 1254, 34 Sup. Ct. 874, upholding statute imposing percentage of claim as penalty for delay in paying people claims on life policies; Supreme Ruling of the F. M. C. v. Snyder, 227 U. S. 502, 57 L. Ed. 614, 33 Sup. Ct. 292, upholding statute imposing penalty on insurer interposing unsuccessful defense in bad faith; Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Seegers, 207 U. S. 77, 52 L. Ed. 110, 28 Sup. Ct. 28, holding South Carolina statute imposing penalty of fifty dollars per day on failure to adjust damage claims within forty days is not void as to intrastate shipments; Carroll v. Greenwich Ins. Co., 199 U. S. 409, 411, 50 L. Ed. 249, 250, 26 Sup. Ct. 66, upholding Iowa Code of 1897, § 1754, prohibiting officers or agents of insurance companies from entering into agreements as to rates or commissions; Farmers' etc. Ins. Co. v. Dobney, 189 U. S. 304, 47 L. Ed. 826, 23 Sup. Ct. 566, upholding Neb. Comp. Stats., c. 43, §§ 43-45, allowing reasonable attorney's fees in successful suit for loss of real property from causes insured against; Home Life Ins. Co. v. Fisher, 188 U. S. 727, 47 L. Ed. 668, 23 Sup. Ct. 381, upholding Florida statute authorizing jury to award reasonable attorney's fees to plaintiff if successful; Iowa Life Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 187 U. S. 355, 47 L. Ed. 214, 23 Sup. Ct. 133, upholding Texas statute authorizing recovery of damages and attorney's fees from insurance companies delaying payment of losses; Denver etc. R. Co. v. Baer Bros. Mercantile Co., 209 Fed. 581, 126

C. C. A. 399, upholding provision of Commerce Act awarding attorneys' fees on recovery of excessive charges; Citizens Ins. Co. v. Clay, 197 Fed. 438, upholding statute classifying insurance companies for rate-fixing purposes; Pioneer Mining Co. v. Delamotte, 185 Fed. 756, 108 C. C. A. 90, upholding statute allowing attorney's fee on foreclosure of laborer's lien; Ivy v. Western Union Tel. Co., 165 Fed. 373, 374, 378, upholding statute making telegraph companies liable for mental anguish; In re Home Discount Co., 147 Fed. 547, upholding act of Alabama of March 9, 1901, regulating business of money lenders, excepting from its provisions banking and loans where amount exceeds seventy-five dollars; The San Rafael, 141 Fed. 279, 72 C. C. A. 388, in action to recover for death of husband, evidence that he intended to go aboard boat, that man of his "description was seen by passengers, that boat sank, warrants finding of his death after three years elapsed without hearing of him; Williamson v. Liverpool etc. Ins. Co., 141 Fed. 56, 5 Ann. Cas. 402, 72 C. C. A. 542, upholding Rev. Stats. Mo. 1899, § 8012, providing for ten per cent damage and reasonable attorney's fee in action on insurance policy where company shown to have "vexatiously refused to pay"; St. Louis etc. Ry. Co. v. Wynne, 90 Ark. 541, 17 Ann. Cas. 631, 119 S. W. 1128, upholding statute imposing penalty and attorneys' fees on railroad failing to pay within thirty days for stock killed by it; Arkansas Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Woolverton, 82 Ark. 483, 102 S. W. 227, statute imposing penalty for failure to pay fire loss is not retroactive; Arkansas Ins. Co. v. McManus, 86 Ark. 121, 110 S. W. 799, Keller v. Home Life Ins. Co., 198 Mo. 459, 95 S. W. 908, and Harp v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 130 Ga. 731, 14 Ann. Cas. 299, 61 S. E. 706, upholding statutes providing for recovery of damages and attorney's fees against insurance companies, failing to pay claims; Davis v. Florida Power Co., 64 Fla. 270, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 965, 60 South. 767, 5 N. C. C. A. 943, upholding statute giving cause of action for death of minor due to wrongful act of corporations and associations only; Southern Ry. Co. v. Lowe, 139 Ga. 364, 77 S. E. 45, Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Simon, 56 Fla. 557, 16 Ann. Cas. 1234, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 126, 47 South. 1005, and Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Coachman, 59 Fla. 139, 20 Ann, Cas. 1047, 52 South. 380, all upholding statute imposing percentage penalty on railroads for failure to pay claims for goods lost in transit within sixty days; Missouri State Life Ins. Co. v. Lovelace, 1 Ga. App. 462, 463, 467, 58 S. E. 101, 103, holding plaintiff entitled to penalty and attorneys' fees allowed by laws of Missouri when policy governed by laws of that State; Continental Life Ins. Co. v. Hattabaugh, 21 Idaho, 295, 299, 300, 121 Pac. 84, 86, 87, upholding statute limiting interest on policy loans; Pittsburgh etc. Ry. Co. v. Taber, 168 Ind. 423, 11 Ann. Cas. 808, 77 N. E. 742, upholding statute providing for attorneys' fee on recovery against owner refusing to pay street assessment; State v. Fairmont Creamery Co., 153 Iowa, 713, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 821, 133 N. W. 900, upholding statute prohibiting discrimination as to prices between different localities in prices paid for local produce by dealers therein;