Opinion of the Court.

the Supreme Court of Illinois. In White v. People, 94 Illinois, 604, 613, it was said: "Whether or not the special tax exceeds the actual benefit to the lot, is not material. It may be supposed to be based on a presumed equivalent. The city council have determined the frontage to be the proper measure of probable benefits. That is generally considered as a very reasonable measure of benefits in the case of such an improvement." So also in Craw v. Tolono, 96 Illinois, 255, it is said: "Special taxation as spoken of in our constitution is based upon the supposed benefit to the contiguous property, and differs from special assessments only in the mode of ascertaining the benefits. In the case of special taxation, the imposi tion of the tax by the corporate authorities is of itself a determination that the benefits to the contiguous property will be as great as the burden of the expense of the improvement, and that such benefits will be so nearly limited, or confined in their effect, to contiguous property, that no serious injustice will be done by imposing the whole expense upon such property." And in Sterling v. Galt, 117 Illinois, 11, in which the difference between special assessment and special taxation was noticed, it was held that the whole of the burden. in case of special taxation was imposed upon the contiguous property upon the hypothesis that the benefits will be equal to the burden.

We do not suppose that the company had by its charter any contract with the State that the matter of special benefit resulting from a local improvement should be ascertained and determined only in the then existing way. There was nothing in the terms of that contract to prevent the State from committing the final determination of the question of benefits to the city council rather than leaving the matter of ascertainment to a jury. And whether the charges are called special taxes or special assessments, and by whatever tribunal or by whatever mode the question of benefits may be determined, the fact remains that the charges are for a local improvement, and cast upon the contiguous property, upon the assumption that it has received a benefit from such improvement, which benefit justifies the charge. The charges here are not taxes

Syllabus.

proper, are not contributions to the State or to the city for the purpose of enabling either to carry on its general administration of affairs, but are a charge only and specially for the cost for a local improvement, supposed to have resulted in an enhancement of the value of the railroad company's property. It is not in lieu of such charges that the company pays annually the stipulated per cent of its gross revenues into the state treasury.

We see no error in the rulings of the Supreme Court of Illinois, and its judgment is Affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD took no part in the decision of this

case.

DE LA VERGNE REFRIGERATING MACHINE COM

PANY v. FEATHERSTONE.

CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT.

No. 1099. Argued November 16, 17, 1892. - Decided January 9, 1893.

A patent for an invention issued to the inventor, "his heirs or assigns," after his death, is a valid patent, and should be construed in the alternative as a grant to him, or his heirs or assigns.

Such a construction would include a grantee or grantees in being, capable of taking the patent and to whose benefit the grant would enure. In such case an executor de son tort may, in Texas, make an assignment of an interest in the patent which will convey a valid title to the assignee, if not repudiated by the executor or administrator of the inventor when duly appointed, or by his children.

66

An inventor agreed with an associate to give him an interest in a patent for the invention when issued, and the associate agreed to procure its issue. The patent was issued after the inventor's death to the inventor by name, his heirs or assigns." His administratrix conveyed to the associate the promised interest, and subsequently the remaining interest, and all persons interested in the estate acquiesced in the conveyances. Held, that the patent should be construed as a grant to the associate as assignee, and should be held to have been obtained by the authority of the administratrix as well as of the associate.

Failure, in such case, to record title papers in the Patent Office, it appearing that the administratrix and the in-part equitable owner had obtained the patent, cannot make the patent void.

VOL. CXLVII-14

Statement of the Case.

When an inventor makes oath to an application for a patent, filed in his lifetime, an amendment to it within the scope of the original oath and of the invention described in the original specification, made after his death without filing a new oath or a new power of attorney, is valid, and does not render the patent void.

THIS was a bill in equity charging appellees with infringement of letters patent of the United States No. 175,020, issued to "James Boyle, his heirs or assigns," March 21, 1876, for an improvement in gas-liquefying pumps.

The bill set forth, among other things, a full history of the proceedings before the Patent Office, and alleged that, shortly after filing his application for the patent, James Boyle died, and that thereafter his administrator, who was also an assignee of a half interest, prosecuted the application, paid the final fee, and took out the patent, it being issued in the name of “ James Boyle, his heirs or assigns."

Appellees demurred generally to the bill, and, the cause having been heard by the Circuit Court thereon, a decision was announced sustaining appellees' demurrer, on the ground that Boyle, having previously died, there was no grantee in being capable of taking at the time the patent was issued, and hence that the patent never had any validity. The opinion will be found reported in 49 Fed. Rep. 916.

A decree was thereupon entered dismissing the bill for want of equity, and complainant appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which entered an order certifying several questions or propositions of law upon which it desired the instruction of this court for their proper decision. These questions or propositions of law are as follows:

"I.

"On October 29, 1875, James Boyle, of Houston, Texas, having made an invention in refrigerating machines, executed an application for a patent therefor in due form and verified by the proper oath, and appointed Alexander & Mason his attorneys to prosecute the same, which application was filed in the Patent Office November 24, 1875.

"Thereafter and on the 27th day of November, 1875, and

Statement of the Case.

while said application was still pending in the Patent Office, James Boyle died, leaving him surviving a widow and four children.

"Thereafter the said application was prosecuted by the said attorneys under the direction of Thomas L. Rankin, who had been appointed temporary administrator of the estate of James Boyle, deceased March 9, 1876, and who obtained the said patent and paid all the Patent Office and solicitors' fees therefor. The patent issued March 21, 1876, and the grantees therein expressed were 'James Boyle, his heirs or assigns.'

"On these facts the instruction of the court is desired upon the question

"1. Whether the grant to James Boyle, his heirs or assigns, was void because of the death of Boyle before the patent was issued or whether such grant was valid on the ground that it should be construed in the alternative as a grant to James Boyle or his heirs or assigns, the words 'heirs or assigns,' including a grantee or grantees in being capable of taking the patent, and the grant enuring to his or their benefit.

"II.

"Prior to the aforesaid application of James Boyle for a patent he made a contract with said Thomas L. Rankin by which Rankin agreed to advance money to apply for and obtain the patent, and Boyle agreed to assign to Rankin onehalf interest in the invention and patent.

"On December 2, 1875, after the death of James Boyle and while the application for the patent was pending in the Patent Office, Rankin made an agreement with Theresa Boyle, the widow of James Boyle, then acting as executrix de son tort, in the words and figures following:

"HOUSTON, TEXAS, December 2, 1875. "Article of Agreement Between T. L. Rankin and Mrs. James Boyle.

“T. L. Rankin of the first part, agrees to complete the ice machine commenced by himself and James Boyle and to pro

Statement of the Case.

vide for Mrs. Boyle while said machine is under construction until next spring, say May first, and also to press the application for patents on the part of said machine claimed by James Boyle and in case said machine is a success, and said patents are obtained, is to use his best efforts to introduce the same, and to divide with Mrs. Boyle the profits of said business until she shall have received five thousand dollars for her share; after which, Mrs. James Boyle agrees to release any further interest in said patents to be obtained and the machines then in use, and from this date, agrees that the said T. L. Rankin shall operate and control any interest James Boyle had pertaining to ice machines, together with his interest. in the Arctic Ice Company. Stock to vote, proxy of same.

"T. L. RANKIN.
"THERESA BOYLE.

"Witness: W. T. SCOTT.'

"After the grant of the patent as above stated, and on the 18th day of July, 1876, the issue of temporary letters of administration to Rankin were superseded by the appointment of the said Theresa Boyle as permanent administratrix. She thereafter filed an inventory of her husband's estate, in which she included the patent in question as held and owned jointly with Thomas L. Rankin.

"Neither Theresa Boyle, nor her children nor Thomas L. Rankin ever repudiated the proceedings whereby said patent was obtained, but enjoyed the beneficial ownership thereof, and sold their interests therein for a valuable consideration. "On these facts the instruction of the court is desired as to the following questions:

"2. Whether the above-quoted instrument should, under the above facts, be construed as an assignment to Thomas L. Rankin.

"3. Whether the patent should be construed as a grant to Thomas L. Rankin as assignee.

"4. Whether, under the above-recited facts, the patent should be held to be obtained by the authority of Theresa Boyle as administratrix as well as of Thomas L. Rankin.