LAND GRANTS.
See PUBLIC LANDS.
LAW GOVERNING.
See ADMIRALTY, 1, 10.
LEASEHOLDS.
See BANKRUPTCY, 4, 5.
LEGISLATIYE POWER.
See COURTS, 4;
TERRITORIES, 1.
LEGITIMATION OF CHILDREN.
See LOCAL LAWS (HAWAII);
STATUTES, A 3.
LICENSE TAXES.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 3, 4.
See ADMIRALTY;
JURISDICTION, B 1.
Colorado. Assessment for taxation (see Constitutional Law, 5). Londoner
v. Denver, 373.
France. Right of action for death by wrongful act at sea (see Admiralty, 9).
La Bourgogne, 95.
Hawaii. Application of act of May 24, 1866, legitimating children. The
courts of Hawaii having prior to the annexation construed the statute
of May 24, 1866, legitimatizing children born out of wedlock by the
subsequent marriage of the parents as not applicable to the offspring
of adulterous intercourse, and the organizing act of the Hawaii terri-
tory having continued the laws of Hawaii not inconsistent with the
Constitution or laws of the United States, this court adopts the con-
struction of the Hawaiian statute given by the courts of that country.
Keaoha v. Castle, 149.
Indiana. Constitutionality of Barrett paving law. The Barrett paving law
of Indiana, the constitutionality of which was sustained by this court
as to abutting property owners in Shaffer v. Werling, 188 U. S. 516;
Hibben v. Smith, 191 U. S. 310, sustained also as to back lying property
owners following Voris v. Pittsburg Plate Glass Co., 163 Indiana, 599.
Cleveland & St. Louis Ry. v. Porter, 177.
Montana. Code, § 1820. Objection to jurisdiction of person (see Jurisdic-
tion, B 3). Western Loan Co. v. Butte & Boston Min. Co., 368.
Porto Rico. Act of legislative assembly of March 10, 1904, relative to trial
and adjudication of property claimed by Roman Catholic Church (see
Courts, 4). Ponce v. Roman Catholic Church, 296.
Texas. Act of April 17, 1905, c. 141, imposing tax upon railroad com-
panies (see Constitutional Law, 1). Galveston, Harrisburg &c. Ry. Co. v.
Texas, 217.
Vermont. Service of process on corporation. Under §§ 1109, 3948, 3949,
Vermont Statutes, the service of process on a division superintendent
in charge of the property attached belonging to a defendant railroad
corporation held to be sufficient. Boston & Maine R. R. v. Gokey, 155.
MARITIME LAW.
See ADMIRALTY.
MARRIAGE.
See LOCAL LAW (HAWAII);
STATUTES, A 3.
MASTER AND SERVANT.
See SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT, 3.
MINES AND MINING.
Sec PUBLIC LANDS, 3, 4, 5.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 3, 4, 6, 7;
STATES, 3.
MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 6.
Act of God-Kansas City flood of 1903--Liability of railroad for loss of cattle.
The Kansas City flood of 1903 was so unexpected and of such an unprece-
dented character that a railroad company was not, under the circum-
stances of this case, chargeable with negligence in sending cattle trains
via Kansas City or for failing to move the cattle from the stock yards
before the climax of the flood. Empire State Cattle Co. v. Atchison &c.
Ry. Co., 1.
NEW TRIAL.
See COURT OF CLAIMS.
NON-RESIDENTS.
See BANKRUPTCY, 2, 3.
NON-USER OF PATENT.
See PATENTS, 5.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 5, 6.
1. Range of equivalents dependent upon degree of invention.
The previous decisions of this court are not to be construed as holding that
only pioneer patents are entitled to invoke the doctrine of equivalents,
but that the range of equivalents depends upon the degree of invention;
and infringement of a patent not primary is therefore not averted
merely because defendant's machine may be differentiated. Paper
Bag Patent Case, 405.
2. Invention; measurement of.
Under § 4888, Rev. Stat., the claims measure the invention, and while the
inventor must describe the best mode of applying the principle of his
invention the description does not necessarily measure the invention.
Ib.
3. Infringement; force of findings of lower courts.
Where both of the lower courts find that complainant did with his machine
what had never been done before and that defendant's machine in-
fringed, this court will not disturb those findings unless they appear
to be clearly wrong. Ib.
Patents are property and entitled to the same rights and sanctions as other
property. Ib.
5. Right of exclusive use; effect of non-user.
An inventor receives from a patent the right to exclude others from its use
for the time prescribed in the statute, and this right is not dependent
on his using the device or affected by his non-use thereof, and, except
in a case where the public interest is involved, the remedy of injunction
to prevent infringement of his patent will not be denied merely on the
ground of non-user of the invention. Ib.
PLEADING.
See JURISDICTION, B 2, 3;
RES JUDICATA.
PORTO RICO.
See COURTS, 4;
TERRITORIES;
See ACTIONS;
BANKRUPTCY, 1;
TERRITORIES, 1, 2.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE.
1. Dismissal where Federal question frivolous.
Where the asserted Federal questions are so plainly devoid of merit as not
to constitute a basis for the writ of error the writ will be dismissed.
Delmar Jockey Club v. Missouri, 324.
2. Following findings of fact concurred in by lower courts.
This court will not disturb the concurrent findings of fact of both the courts
below unless so unwarranted by the evidence as to be clearly erroneous,
and a finding that the rate of speed of a vessel on the high seas during a
fog was immoderate under the international rules, will not be disturbed
because based on the conceptions of immoderate speed prevailing in the
United States courts and not on those prevailing in the courts of the
country to which the vessel belonged. La Bourgogne, 95.
3. Following findings of fact concurred in by lower courts.
Both the courts below having found that there was no satisfactory proof to
support complainants' claim against defendants for contributory in-
fringement by inducing others to violate contracts of conditional sale
this court applies the usual rule and will not disturb such findings.
Scribner v. Straus, 352.
4. Limitation of rule as to conformity by Federal courts with rules of state
While, under § 194, Rev. Stat., practice in civil causes other than those in
equity or admiralty in United States courts must conform to the state
practice, where the jurisdiction of the Federal courts is involved this
court alone is the ultimate arbiter of questions arising in regard thereto.
Western Loan Co. v. Butte & Boston Min. Co., 368.
5. Circuit Court need not alter rule so as to conform to altered state practice.
Where under §§ 914, 918, Rev. Stat., the Circuit Court has adopted a rule
of practice as to form and service of process in conformity with the
state practice, it is not bound to alter the rule so as to conform to
subsequent alterations made in the state practice. Boston & Maine
R. R. v. Gokey, 155.
6. On refusal of Circuit Court of Appeals to decide a question.
Where the Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to decide a question, this
court may either remand with instructions, or it may render such judg-
ment as the Circuit Court of Appeals should have rendered, and where
the new trial would, as in this case, involve a hardship on the suc-
cessful party, it will adopt the latter course. Ib.
PRIVITY.
See ADMIRALTY;
CONSTITUTIONAL Law, 10.
See BANKRUPTCY, 2, 3;
LOCAL LAW (VT.);
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 5.
1. Homestead entries-Right of homesteader to embrace in claim contiguous
quarter-sections.
A homesteader who initiates a right to either surveyed or unsurveyed land
and complies with the legal requirements may, when he enters the land,
embrace in his claim land in contiguous quarter-sections if he does not
exceed the quantity allowed by law and provided that his improvements
are upon some portion of the tract, and that he does such acts as put the
public upon notice as to the extent of his claim. (Ferguson v. Mc-
Laughlin, 96 U. S. 174, distinguished.) St. Paul, Minn. & Man. Ry.
2. Homestead entries; right of railway, under act of August 5, 1892, in respect of.
Under the land grant act of August 5, 1892, 27 Stat. 390, chap. 382, the
right of the railway company to select indemnity lands, non-mineral
and not reserved and to which no adverse right or claim had attached
or been initiated, does not include land which had been entered in
good faith by a homesteader at the time of the supplementary selection,
and on a relinquishment being properly filed by the homesteader the
land becomes open to settlement and the railway company is not en-
titled to the land under a selection filed prior to such relinquishment.
. Ib.
3. Mining locations; reversion to public domain.
Ground embraced in a mining location may become part of the public do-
main so as to be subject to another location before the expiration of the
statutory period for performing annual labor if, at the time when the
second location is made, there has been an actual abandonment of the
claim by the first locator. Farrell v. Lockhart, 142.
|