Opinion of the Court. inventive powers, and that which they are able to accomplish, he has sold in advance to his employer. So, also, when one is in the employ of another in a certain line of work, and devises an improved method or instrument for doing that work, and uses the property of his employer and the services of other employés to develop and put in practicable form his invention, and explicitly assents to the use by his employer of such invention, a jury, or a court trying the facts is warranted in finding that he has so far recognized the obligations of service flowing from his employment and the benefits resulting from his use of the property, and the assistance of the co-employés of his employer, as to have given to such employer an irrevocable license to use such invention." And M'Clurg v. Kingsland, 1 How. 202, was cited as decisive. In the case at bar, as clearly summarized by the Court of Claims, the invention was made while petitioner was in the employment of the government as a skilled mechanic, whose duty it was to secure the most efficient service from the machines in his care, to keep them in repair, and to apply such improvements as experience might suggest. While so employed he devised the improvements in question, to be applied to the machines then under his charge as a machinist; doing the work largely in office hours and entirely with government tools and machinery; and he took out the patent at the solicitation of the bureau officers, and at the expense of the government. This was in 1875; he was discharged in 1877; the device was not used until 1879, and before it worked efficiently required certain mechanical changes, which were perfected and applied by government machinists, using government tools and material. Three days after the issue of the patent he executed the assignment set forth in the findings, whereby he covenanted, "for the sum of one dollar and other valuable consideration to me (him) paid " by the United States Treasury Department, that that department and its bureaus should have "the right to make and use machines containing the improvements claimed in said letters patent to the full end of the term for which said letters Opinion of the Court. patent are granted." But it is said that there is a distinction. between the right to use and the use of an invention, and that in this instance; while the right to use was absolute, the actual use was to be compensated for by the continuous employment of McAleer in accordance with a contemporaneous agreement to that effect between him and the superintendent of the bureau. We do not regard this position as tenable. The instrument constituted a contract fully executed on both sides, which gave the right to the Treasury Department, without liability for remuneration thereafter, to make and use the machines containing the patented improvement to the end of the term for which the letters were granted. It was a complete legal obligation in itself, with no uncertainty as to the object or extent of the engagement, and could not be defeated, contradicted, or varied by proof of any collateral parol agreement inconsistent with its terms. Seitz v. Brewers' Refrigerating Machine Co., 141 U. S. 510. The agreement that McAleer's "assignment should hold good only during plaintiff's employment in said Bureau of Engraving and Printing and not longer," was thus inconsistent and must be regarded as in defeasance and not as imposing a condition precedent to the use, the right to which had been completely granted for good and valuable consideration. Moreover, the petition does not seek recovery for breach of any such collateral agreement, but proceeds upon an implied agreement under the licenses. We think the Court of Claims properly held that the case came within their previous rulings, which, as we have seen, were in accordance with the decisions of this court, and that the instrument executed by McAleer secured by covenant the right to use the device in the Treasury Department, which right would, under the circumstances, have otherwise been implied. Judgment affirmed. Statement of the Case. POWELL v. BRUNSWICK COUNTY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA. No. 898. Submitted November 20, 1893. - Decided December 4, 1893. This court must determine for itself whether it has jurisdiction under Rev. Stat. § 709, to review the judgment of a state court; and the certificate of the presiding judge of the State that a state of case exists for the interposition of this court cannot, of itself, confer jurisdiction upon it to reexamine a judgment of that court. It is essential to the maintenance of the jurisdiction over the judgment of the state court upon the ground of erroneous decision as to the validity of a state statute or a right under the Constitution of the United States, that it should appear from the record that the validity of such statute was drawn in question, as repugnant to the Constitution, and that the decision sustained its validity, or that the right was specially set up or claimed, and denied. It is well settled that the construction put upon a state statute by the highest court of the State will generally be followed by this court, unless it conflicts with the constitution, or a Federal statute, or a general rule of commercial law. Applying these rules it was held that the construction put by the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of Virginia in Taylor v. Supervisors, 86 Virginia, 506 upon the provision in the charter of the Atlantic and Danville Railway Company considered in this suit, leaves no Federal question for this court. MOTION to dismiss. This was a bill of complaint filed by R. S. Powell and fourteen others, resident citizens and taxpayers of the county of Brunswick, suing on behalf of themselves and all other citizens and taxpayers of the county, making themselves parties, March 25, 1889, in the Circuit Court of the county of Brunswick, in the State of Virginia, against the board of supervisors of that county and the Atlantic and Danville Railway Company, to enjoin the disposition of certain bonds of the county, theretofore issued to the company; the doing of any act by means whereof the county might become bound as a subscriber to the capital stock of the company; and to adjudge all the proceedings of every kind whereby it had been attempted to bind the county as such subscriber to be irregular, null, and void. VOL. CL-28 Statement of the Case. Under an act of the general assembly of Virginia, approved April 21, 1882, the Atlantic and Danville Railway Company was chartered and authorized to construct a line of road from a point on the James River, in Surry County, by a designated route to the city of Danville, and it was provided that certain designated counties (including the county of Brunswick) along the proposed road might subscribe to the capital stock of the company. At a general election held on the fourth Thursday, being the 24th day of May, 1883, the question of subscription was submitted to a vote of the qualified voters of the county, under an order of the county court, "in accordance with the provisions of sections 62 and 63, chapter 61, Code of Virginia, 1873," and return having been made by the judges of election to the court, commissioners were appointed to canvass with the clerk the ballots and report thereon. The board discharged this duty, canvassed the ballots, reported the result, and further reported "that three-fifths of the qualified voters of the county voting upon the question were in favor of subscription, and that said three-fifths includes a majority of the votes cast by freeholders at the election and a majority of the registered voters of the county." This report was returned to the office of the county clerk and admitted to record June 13, 1883. By an act of the general assembly of Virginia of January 15, 1875, (Sess. Laws Va. 1874, 1875, p. 29, c. 37,) it was provided that whenever the sense of the qualified voters of any county should be taken on the question of whether the board of supervisors should subscribe to the stock of any internal improvement company, the returns of such elections or the decision of the voters should be subject to the inquiry, determination, and judgment of the county court upon the written complaint of fifteen or more of the qualified voters of the county of an undue election or false return, to be filed within thirty days after the election, and the court to proceed upon the merits and to determine concerning the same according to the constitution and laws of the State. Such a complaint was filed in reference to this vote, June 21; amended; and as amended quashed on June 27, 1883, and on the same day the Statement of the Case. county court ordered the board of supervisors to meet July 3, 1883, to carry the wishes of the voters into effect. The meeting was accordingly held on that day and subscription made to the amount of thirty-five hundred dollars per mile for every mile of main line constructed within the county, to be paid in county bonds, payable twenty-five years after date, with interest at six per cent. Bonds to the amount of seventeen thousand five hundred dollars were issued and delivered to the company January 21, 1889, and application was made in March, 1889, for additional bonds when the complainants filed the bill in question, alleging therein that a large number of the voters of the county were induced to vote for the subscription by false and fraudulent representations made on behalf of the company; that there were gross frauds and irregularities in conducting the election and making the returns, induced by the fraudulent acts of the company, and participated in by the officers of election; that the company was never duly organized and was incapable of making a contract of subscription; that the act incorporating the company was void because in conflict with certain provisions of the state constitution; and averring the illegality of the subscription on other grounds in respect of the charter, amendments thereto, and proceedings thereunder. The defendant company demurred, and also answered, denying all the allegations of the bill, and alleging the final disposition of most of them adversely to complainants in Taylor v. Supervisors, 86 Virginia, 506. The cause having come on for hearing resulted in a decree dismissing the bill. An appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State, allowed on petition duly presented, and the decree of the Circuit Court was affirmed. Appellants thereupon applied to the president of the Court of Appeals for a writ of error to this court, which was allowed, together with a certificate "that the Federal questions presented by the assignment of errors in the foregoing petition were duly raised by the assignment of errors made and argued by the petitioners in the said Supreme Court of Appeals, (the said Supreme Court of Appeals being the highest court of law |