114 U. S. 138-146, 29 L. 114, FARMINGTON v. PILLSBURY. Courts.- Old rule, requiring objection to citizenship, unless appearing on face of record, to be taken by plea in abatement, was changed by act of 1875, under which Federal court can dismiss for want of jurisdictional citizenship at any time, p. 144.

Approved in Graves v. Corbin, 132 U. S. 590, 33 L. 469, 10 S. Ct. 202, remanding case to State court, after its successful prosecution in Federal court; Nashua R. R. v. Lowell R. R., 136 U. S. 374, 34 L. 368, 10 S. Ct. 1008, holding objection to jurisdiction could be taken in answer; Wetmore v. Rymer, 169 U. S. 119, 42 L. 683, 18 S. Ct. 295, holding affidavits, etc., failed to show that property was not of sufficient value to give jurisdiction; Keeney v. Roberts, 12 Sawy. 39, 39 Fed. 629, court remanding case to State court on its own motion; Hardin v. Cass Co., 42 Fed. 656, and Simon v. House, 46 Fed. 319, where amount involved was under jurisdictional amount, and suit was dismissed; Indiana v. Lake Erie, etc., Ry., 85 Fed. 2, remanding application for mandamus to State court upon plaintiff's motion. Approved in Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Carroll, 84 Fed. 780, 52 U. S. App. 458, without applying rule.

Distinguished in Cuthbert v. Galloway, 35 Fed. 469, holding objection to jurisdiction waived by plea in bar; Southern Exp. Co. v. Todd, 56 Fed. 105, 12 U. S. App. 351, holding objection that suit was brought in wrong district came too late, when made for first time by motion in arrest of judgment. Denied in Imperial Refining Co. v. Wyman, 38 Fed. 576, 578, 3 L. R. A. 505, 506, and n., holding special plea to jurisdiction necessary, and directing issue to be made by pleadings.

Courts. Act of 1875 expressly prohibits collusive transfers of negotiable paper in order to confer jurisdiction upon Federal court, where assignor himself could not have brought action, pp. 144-146.

The following cases apply rule, and dismiss for want of jurisdiction: Little v. Giles, 118 U. S. 601, 603, 30 L. 271, 7 S. Ct. 35, 36, where deed was made to non-resident for purposes of jurisdiction; Morris v. Gilmer, 129 U. S. 326, 32 L. 694, 9 S. Ct. 292, holding change of domicile pretended, and not actual; Lehigh Min., etc., Co. v. Kelly, 160 U. S. 341, 40 L. 449, 16 S. Ct. 313, where foreign corporation was created and property transferred to it for jurisdictional purposes; Lake Co. Commrs. v. Dudley, 173 U. S. 253, 19 S. Ct. 402, reviewing authorities, and holding transfer of note to non-resident a mere device, and collusive; Norton v. European, etc., Ry., 32 Fed. 875, suit on railroad bonds colorably transferred; Industrial, etc., Guaranty Co. v. Electrical Supply Co., 58 Fed. 743, 16 U. S. App. 196, bill filled to enable filing of cross-bill and litigation among co-defendants. Approved in Andes v. Millard, 70 Fed. 516, but holding objection that action was fictitious could not be taken after judgment; Wonderly v. Lafayette Co., 150 Mo. 648, 649, 51 S. W. 748, 749, 45 L. R. A. 390, holding judgment fraudulently obtained by alleging

ANN

ownership. Cited in Farmington Vill. Corp. v. Bank, 85 Me. Atl. 966, generally, as to subject-matter of suit.

stinguished in Hartog v. Memory, 116 U. S. 590, 29 L. 726, 6 8. 2522 reversing S. C., 23 Fed. 837, holding defendant estopped by decce from denying jurisdiction on account of citizenship; Cross Aen. 141 U. S. 533, 35 L. 847, 12 S. Ct. 69, where transfer of note at mortgage was made for valuable consideration; Lawton v. 30 Fed. 642, denying motion to remand, where transfer of was bona fide.

4 147-149, 29 L. 134, EX PARTE HUGHES.

Kardamus does not lie to compel judge of inferior court to pay money deposited in registry of court, where court has exly adjudged that litigation was not at an end, and fund should there until suit was prosecuted to final decree, p. 149.

Sat cited.

4. S. 149-158, 29 L. 58, STEPHENSON v. BROOKLYN R. R. Patents of O'Haire, Jones, and Stephenson, for improvements asperating car doors” and “in signalling devices for street cars,” vold for want of patentable novelty, pp. 151-158.

Patents.- Combination is patentable, only when its several eleRents produce, by their joint action, a new and useful result, or an 4 result, cheaper or more advantageously, p. 157.

Approved in following, holding combinations not patentable: cher Mfg. Co. v. Atwater Mfg. Co., 114 U. S. 524, 29 L. 232, 5 8. 21008, use of two pairs of dies; Pomace-Holder Co. v. Ferguson, U. 8. 338, 30 L. 408, 7 S. Ct. 384, guide-frame and pomace-rack cheese-formers; Watson v. Cincinnati Ry., 132 U. S. 167, 33 L. 410 8. Ct. 47, use of outside and inside rigid doors in grain cars; EL v. Wooster, 132 U. S. 701, 33 L. 506, 10 S. Ct. 231, addition of

compartment to box creamery on legs; Florsheim v. Schilling, C. 8. 77, 34 L. 579, 11 S. Ct. 25, patent for corset; Fond du Lac 1. May, 137 U. S. 406, 407, 34 L. 718, 11 S. Ct. 102, citing authoriSe improvement in construction of prisons; Union Edge Setter Co. *Keith, 139 U. S. 539, 35 L. 264, 11 S. Ct. 624, sole-edge burnishing

ne; Cluett v. Claflin, 24 Blatchf. 416, 30 Fed. 924, improvement shirt-bosoms; Leonard v. Lovell, 29 Fed. 314, collecting authori and holding improvement in ice-chest of refrigerator not tentable; Holmes Electric, etc., Co. v. Metropolitan, etc., Alarm 23 Fed. 256, improvement in electric linings for safes; Nat. Progress, etc., Mach. Co. v. John R. Williams Co., 44 Fed. 192, 12 L&A. 109, and n., Improved cigar-bunching machine; Johnson Co. ▾ Pacific Rolling-Mills Co., 47 Fed. 589, 592, improvement in streetals; Western Elec. Co. v. Capital Tel., etc., Co., 86 Fed. 777, of multiple boards and "means" to ascertain what lines in

telephone exchange are in use. The following apply rule, and sustain patents: Railway Register Mfg. Co. v. North Hudson, etc., R. Co., 24 Fed. 795, and S. C., 26 Fed. 412, holding invention of fareregister new and patentable; Niles Tool Works v. Betts Machine Co., 27 Fed. 305, improvement in boring mills; Bowers v. Von Schmidt, 63 Fed. 583, claims for improvements in dredging machines and apparatus; Rubber-Tire Wheel Co. v. Columbia, etc., Wheel Co., 91 Fed. 990, patent for new rubber-tired wheel.

Distinguished in Hoe v. Kahler, 23 Blatchf. 362, 25 Fed. 277, holding certain adjustment of rollers in printing presses patentable.

114 U. S. 158-173, 29 L. 83, CHAPMAN v. BREWER.

Bankruptcy. Where Federal bankruptcy proceeding was commenced before attachment in State court, the assignment in bankruptcy, though subsequently made, related back, vesting title in assignee, and attachment four months before commencement of proceeding was dissolved by the assignment, pp. 167, 168.

Approved in Sullivan v. Rabb, 86 Ala. 441, 5 So. 750, holding bankruptcy proceedings dissolved attachment levied less than four months before adjudication.

Distinguished in Witters v. Sowles, 33 Fed. 540, where first peti tion in bankruptcy was held ineffective because of control retained by attorneys, and on account of delay.

Judgment. Adjudication of bankruptcy in District Court, correct in form, and court having jurisdiction of subject-matter and parties, is conclusive, and cannot be collaterally attacked in suit by assignee against person claiming adverse interest in property, p. 169.

Approved in Evers v. Watson, 156 U. S. 532, 39 L. 522, 15 S. Ct. 432, holding evidence insufficient to set aside decree of Federal court; Mount v. Manhattan Co., 41 N. J. Eq. 214, 3 Atl. 728, holding decree of bankruptcy conclusive in an action brought by bankrupt's administratrix.

Courts.- Circuit Court of United States, having otherwise jurisdiction in case, will, as a general rule, administer same relief in equity which State courts can grant, pp. 170, 171.

Approved in More v. Steinbach, 127 U. S. 84, 32 L. 56, 8 S. Ct. 1073, holding plaintiff out of possession, by virtue of California statute, could bring action to determine adverse claim; Greeley v. Lowe, 155 U. S. 75, 39 L. 76, 15 S. Ct. 28, holding, by virtue of Florida statute, court, in bill in equity, for partition, could settle questions of title; Wehrman v. Conklin, 155 U. S. 325, 39 L. 173, 15 S. Ct. 133, bill in equity, to quiet title, brought by persons in possession of lands in Iowa, sustained; Roberts v. Northern Pac. R. R., 158 U. S. 30, 39 L. 883, 15 S. Ct. 766, holding actual possession of part, and constructive possession of rest of land, under Wisconsin law. sufficient to

ANN

in bill to quiet title; Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Miner, 11 Sawy. S. 25 Fed. 536, holding right of interpleader, conferred by CaliforFatute, could be enforced in Federal court of equity; Land, etc., p. Co. v. Bardon, 45 Fed. 707, equitable action to quiet title by in possession, brought under provision of Wisconsin statute; Below. Chatterton, 51 Fed. 616, 10 U. S. App. 267, treating action by title to unoccupied lands as an equity case; Grether v. Wright, Fed. 746, 43 U. S. App. 770, entertaining bill in equity to enjoin Tres levied upon bonds of District of Columbia by State of Ohio; Curragh v. H. Wetter Mfg. Co., 78 Fed. 14, 49 U. S. App. 14, sustain

by contract creditor against insolvent corporation, permitted Arkansas statute; California Oil, etc., Co. v. Miller, 96 Fed. 20, truendo.

Distinguished in Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Cannon, 46 Fed. 232, Esmissing bill to quiet title, by one holding legal title, and out of possession.

Courts - Bankruptcy.- Circuit Court has general power, irregertive of citizenship, to grant equitable relief in sult in equity, by assignee in bankruptcy, against adverse claimants on assigned operty, and may enjoin him from throwing cloud on title by levy execution from State court, after commencement of bankruptcy proceeding, or from making further levies, pp. 171-173.

Approved in Moran v. Sturges, 154 U. S. 270, 38 L. 985, 14 S. Ct. 192, admiralty proceeding, restraining State court, where its jurisdion had not attached; Louisville Trust Co. v. Cincinnati, 73 Fed. 734, arguendo.

Distinguished in Sargent v. Helton, 115 U. S. 351, 29 L. 413, 6 S. C80, holding Federal court could not enjoin proceedings of State court, at instance of purchaser at bankruptcy sale; United States . Wilson, 118 U. S. 89, 30 L. 112, 6 S. Ct. 993, holding Federal court muld not remove cloud by bill in equity, without requiring complainto obtain prior possession; Baird v. Warwick Machine Co., 40 Fed 386, holding purchaser at execution sale could not restrain foreclosure of mortgage as a fraudulent conveyance.

114 U. 8. 174-176, 29 L. 135, EX PARTE MORGAN.

Kandamus may be used to require inferior court to decide matter within its jurisdiction, and pending before it, but not to control derision, p. 175.

Approved in Ex parte Brown, 116 U. S. 402, 29 L. 677, 6 S. Ct. 387, dying mandamus to review order dismissing an appeal; Parker, Portioner, 131 U. S. 226, 33 L. 124, 9 S. Ct. 709, allowing mandamus Greeting Supreme Court of territory to reinstate an appeal; In re Morrison. 147 U. S. 26, 37 L. 65, 13 S. Ct. 250, refusing mandamus Erecting lower court to vacate order of dismissal upon the merits; ire Hawkins, 147 U. S. 490, 37 L. 252, 13 S. Ct. 527, holding man. tamus did not lie to compel court to receive certain depositions;

telephone exchange are in use. The following apply rule, and sustain patents: Railway Register Mfg. Co. v. North Hudson, etc., R. Co., 24 Fed. 795, and S. C., 26 Fed. 412, holding invention of fareregister new and patentable; Niles Tool Works v. Betts Machine Co., 27 Fed. 305, improvement in boring mills; Bowers v. Von Schmidt, 63 Fed. 583, claims for improvements in dredging machines and apparatus; Rubber-Tire Wheel Co. v. Columbia, etc., Wheel Co., 91 Fed. 990, patent for new rubber-tired wheel.

Distinguished in Hoe v. Kahler, 23 Blatchf. 362, 25 Fed. 277, holding certain adjustment of rollers in printing presses patentable.

114 U. S. 158-173, 29 L. 83, CHAPMAN v. BREWER.

Bankruptcy. Where Federal bankruptcy proceeding was commenced before attachment in State court, the assignment in bankruptcy, though subsequently made, related back, vesting title in assignee, and attachment four months before commencement of proceeding was dissolved by the assignment, pp. 167, 168.

Approved in Sullivan v. Rabb, 86 Ala. 441, 5 So. 750, holding bankruptcy proceedings dissolved attachment levied less than four months before adjudication.

Distinguished in Witters v. Sowles, 33 Fed. 540, where first petition in bankruptcy was held ineffective because of control retained by attorneys, and on account of delay.

Judgment. Adjudication of bankruptcy in District Court, correct in form, and court having jurisdiction of subject-matter and parties, is conclusive, and cannot be collaterally attacked in suit by assignee against person claiming adverse interest in property, p. 169.

Approved in Evers v. Watson, 156 U. S. 532, 39 L. 522, 15 S. Ct. 432, holding evidence insufficient to set aside decree of Federal court; Mount v. Manhattan Co., 41 N. J. Eq. 214, 3 Atl. 728, holding decree of bankruptcy conclusive in an action brought by bankrupt's administratrix.

Courts.- Circuit Court of United States, having otherwise jurisdiction in case, will, as a general rule, administer same relief in equity which State courts can grant, pp. 170, 171.

Approved in More v. Steinbach, 127 U. S. 84, 32 L. 56, 8 S. Ct. 1073, holding plaintiff out of possession, by virtue of California statute, could bring action to determine adverse claim; Greeley v. Lowe, 155 U. S. 75, 39 L. 76, 15 S. Ct. 28, holding, by virtue of Florida statute, court, in bill in equity, for partition, could settle questions of title; Wehrman v. Conklin, 155 U. S. 325, 39 L. 173, 15 S. Ct. 133, bill in equity, to quiet title, brought by persons in possession of lands in Iowa, sustained; Roberts v. Northern Pac. R. R., 158 U. S. 30, 39 L. 883, 15 S. Ct. 766, holding actual possession of part, and constructive possession of rest of land, under Wisconsin law. sufficient to

ANN