Opinion of the Court. in advance the several tracts with whose owners negotiations were to be had. It seems to us that it was a sufficient and the whole property right, and when one grant was surrendered a new grant was taken for additional land. The second grant was made upon an entire resurvey of the land; the two estates were different and the party could not hold both estates; they were not consistent, and that is the result in this very case. Here, in the first place, in 1760, was a patent for six hundred and eighty-one acres granted upon a warrant of resurvey; upon a resurvey of said patent in 1772 it was discovered that the land embraced in it was covered in part by patents of several prior patentees; that it contained portions of several older grants which had been improperly included in it, by the lines of one of which older grants it was divided into two distinct and unconnected parts; the surveyor thereupon in his return of the resurvey included the one of said parts nearest the beginning, which contained one hundred and fifteen acres, to which he added thirty-six acres of contiguous vacancy, making in all one hundred and fifty-one acres, and for this the patent of 1772 was granted. The patent for the rest of the land is not produced before us; but we may assume that there were two several patents issued, one of which embraced this land, and, of course, it is held under the conditions imposed by the graut. It won't do to say that that part of the land embraced in this patent of one hundred and fifty-one acres is held by the title acquired in 1760, because it is held as a part of a new and entire tract, and upon different terms, and for a different rental, and therefore there is an inconsistency in his claiming to hold the land both under the patent of 1760 and that of 1772. The original entry of six hundred and eighty-one acres has disappeared entirely, and that land is now held under two different patents. Any acceptance of a new lease providing different terms of rental and for a different period involves the surrender of the old lease, and so acceptance of a new grant from the lord proprietor embracing part of that which was formerly held under the old grant necessarily involved a surrender of the original title. The requirement that the original patentee shall formally surrender the title to be affected by the new grant has never been rescinded as far as we are advised. In point of fact, however, the practice has fallen into disuse. It appears from Mr. Kilty's statement that the practice was simply to enter on this certificate of resurvey an order for the patent to be surrendered, but finally the practice of surrendering the old certificate or patent seems to have been abandoned entirely. Now, there were two very good reasons for that: First, it was not necessary because of the very fact that an acceptance of a new title inconsistent with the former operated as a surrender of the former, and, next, because of the doubt that seems to have been raised of the effect of the claims in the matter of priority of some other individual who might in the interim between the old and the new patent have obtained a patent covering the same land, and as between several parties holding under different patents the one who held the old title would be regarded as retain Opinion of the Court. reasonable compliance with the law if the map, as finally acted upon by the President, showed the location, quantity ing whatever interest he acquired under it for the purpose of preserving priorities; but that is altogether a different question from the relation of the tenant and the old proprietor, and as between them it seems to be very plain that the acceptance of a new title or a new grant was conceded to supersede the old title, and therefore we think that the new title must stand. There has been something also presented to us to affect our judgment in that particular. As another item of evidence it seems that James White originally conveyed his estate to Robert Peter and Adam Stewart as tenants in common. By an act of the assembly of Maryland the property of all British subjects was confiscated, and under that act Adam Stewart's was confiscated, and certain commissioners were appointed to take charge of the confiscated property and dispose of it. Adam Stewart's interest in this property was sold by these commissioners. I do not remember the date of the sale, but that is quite immaterial; somewhere about 1785. Afterwards, in 1792, the chancellor made a conveyance of the property which Adam Stewart had thus forfeited to Robert Peter. The deed from the State to Robert Peter contained no reservation of the mines, and it is claimed that this last deed from the commissioners to Robert Peter of the interest of Stewart's vested in Peter all interest in whatever mines might be on the property. An inspection of that instrument will show that it purports to do nothing of the sort. The deed recites that about two hundred and fifty acres of land, which it does not locate anywhere, the property of Adam Stewart, were confiscated and sold to Robert Peter, and the deed professes to convey the property of Adam Stewart and nothing else. The property that Adam Stewart had was an undivided moiety in the land and nothing more, and the deed from the chancellor does not on its face purport to convey anything else than exactly the property that was owned by Adam Stewart in conjunction with Robert Peter. The construction of the deed, therefore, does not bear out the claim on the part of the present holders; if it did, however, the result would have to be the same, because the deed from the State was not made until 1792, after the cession of the District to the United States, and the cession passed to the United States all the public domain within the limits of the District that is, that part of it that had been a part of the State of Maryland — because it is said that all of the territory "is hereby acknowledged to be forever ceded and relinquished to the Congress and Government of the United States in full and absolute right and exclusive jurisdiction, as well of soil as of persons residing or to reside thereon." If this does not convey all the territory to the United States, then the United States never did acquire it, because that is the only cession by which a conveyance was made of the title to this property to the United States, and its title to it depends upon this cession and nothing else. All this property in the District that had formerly belonged to Maryland was ceded by this act in 1791, and, that having been done, the State of Maryland could Opinion of the Court. and character of the parcels of land to be taken, with the names of their owners. The fifteenth and sixteenth assignments, which complain of the course of the court in adopting and acting upon the decision of the President of the United States approving the appraised values of part only of the land selected for the Rock Creek Park, present the same contention in another form, viz., that the court and commissioners were concluded by the enumeration of tracts contained in the map when first prepared, and call for no further remarks. The fourteenth assignment charges the court with error in not thereafter have vested in any one the title to any part of the property. We do not find anything, however, in the circumstances referred to which affects this case. A point was made in argument which had not been made before and not founded upon any new facts in reference to the character of these proceedings before the chancellor upon the application for a repatent. Robert Peter had a resurvey patent in 1803 signed by the chancellor and founded upon a warrant of resurvey issued in 1800, about six or eight months before Congress had passed its law assuming jurisdiction over the District, and we held that that could not pass title to land in the District; but it is claimed that the proceedings before the chancellor as a judge of the land court was in its nature a judicial proceeding, and that all such proceedings and the result of them are saved by the act of Congress which assumed jurisdiction over this District. That is entirely a misconception, we think, of the act of Congress. All that it says is this: "That in all cases where judgments or decrees have been obtained or hereafter shall be obtained on suits now pending in any of the courts of the Commonwealth of Virginia or of the State of Maryland, where the defendant resides, or has property within the District of Columbia, it shall be lawful for the plaintiff in such cases, upon filing an exemplification of the record and proceedings in such suit with the clerk of the court of the county where the defendant resides or his property may be found, to sue out writs of execution thereon returnable to the said court, which shall be proceeded on in the same manner as if the judgment or decree had originally been obtained in said court." Now, this applies only to contests between private parties in which execution may issue and does not provide for a proceeding in which the State may be a party. The language is exclusively applicable to private parties. We think, therefore, upon the whole, that none of the new considerations which have been presented to us shake our former conclusion and the motion to rescind the order is overruled. What I have said applies to the Shoemaker tract with more force than to the Truesdell tract, because that is admitted to be a new grant or, at least, taken under the patent in 1772 and not derived from a patent in 1760 at all. Opinion of the Court. refusing to allow interest on the amounts assessed as the values for lands selected for the Rock Creek Park. The argument shows that the interest claimed was for the time that elapsed between the initiation of the proceedings and the payment of the money into court. The vice of this contention is in the assumption that the lands were actually condemned and withdrawn from the possession of their owners by the mere filing of the map. Interest accrues either by agreement of the debtor to allow it for the use of money, or, in the nature of damages, by reason of the failure of the debtor to pay the principal when due. Of course, neither ground for such a demand can be found in the present case. No agreement to pay the interest demanded is pointed to, and no failure to pay the amount assessed took place. That amount was not fixed and ascertained till the confirmation of the report. Then some of those entitled to the assessments accepted their money, the plaintiffs in error declined to accept, and the amounts assessed in their favor were paid into court, which must be deemed equivalent to payment. It is true that, by the institution of proceedings to condemn, the possession and enjoyment by the owner are to some extent interfered with. He can put no permanent improvements on the land, nor sell it, except subject to the condemnation proceedings. But the owner was in receipt of the rents, issues, and profits during the time occupied in fixing the amount to which he was entitled, and the inconveniences to which he was subjected by the delay are presumed to be considered and allowed for in fixing the amount of the compensation. Such is the rule laid down in cases of the highest authority. Reid v. Hanover Branch Railroad, 105 Mass. 303; Kidder v. Orford, 116 Mass. 165; Hamersley v. New York City, 56 N. Y. 533; Norris v. Philadelphia, 70 Penn. St. 332; Chicago v. Palmer, 93 Illinois, 125; Phillips v. South Park Commission, 119 Illinois, 626. These various contentions and objections did not escape the attention of the court below, but were disposed of, as they arose in the proceedings, in opinions of great research and ability, which appear in the record. We have briefly reviewed VOL. CXLV-21 Opinion of the Court. them here, not to add to what was so well expressed in those opinions, but to show that the questions so zealously and ably pressed upon us have not been disregarded. Our conclusion is that we find, in the legislation creating the park and in the proceedings under it, no infringement of the constitutional or legal rights of the plaintiffs in error, and the judgment of the court below is accordingly Affirmed. WEATHERHEAD v. COUPE. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND. No. 104. Argued January 4, 5, 1893. - Decided January 16, 1893. Claims 1 and 3 of letters patent No. 213,323 granted to William Coupe, March 18, 1879, for an improvement in hide-stretching machines, construed. The principal feature of the Coupe machine, covered by claim 1, and of his method of stretching hides, covered by claim 3, is, that the hide is stretched longitudinally and transversely at the same time; and a single passage of the hide through the machine is supposed to give it sufficient stretching transversely as well as longitudinally. The defendant's machine has no stretcher bar, substantially such as that of the patent, giving a transverse stretch to the hide simultaneously with the giving of the longitudinal stretch; and, therefore, does not infringe the patent. THE case is stated in the opinion. Mr. Causten Browne and Mr. Walter B. Vincent for appellants. Mr. Wilmarth II. Thurston for appellees. MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the court. This is a suit in equity, brought January 11, 1881, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Rhode Island, by William Coupe and Edwin A. Burgess against George |