faction of the court that neither Sterling T. Austin, Senior, nor any of his surviving representatives, gave any aid or comfort to the late rebellion, but were throughout the war loyal to the government of the United States," made the establishment of loyalty in fact, as contradistinguished from innocence in law produced by pardon, a prerequisite to jurisdiction, and the Court of Claims, having found that the claimant was not thus loyal, properly dismissed the petition. Austin v. United States, 417.

LACHES.

See EQUITY, 5, 6, 7, 8.

LEASE.

A grant in a lease of forty acres of land, described by metes and bounds, for the sole and only purpose of boring, mining, and excavating for petroleum or carbon oil and gas, and piping of oil and gas over all the tract excepting reserved therefrom ten acres, also described by metes and bounds, upon which no well shall be drilled without the consent of the lessor, is a grant of all the gas and oil under the entire tract, conditioned that the lessee shall not drill wells on the ten-acre plat without the consent of the lessor. Brown v. Spilman, 665.

LOCAL LAW.

1. In Iowa, an insolvent debtor may make a mortgage or other conveyance of his property to one or more of his creditors, with intent to give them preference, and, in the absence of fraud, such mortgage or conveyance will not operate as a general assignment for the benefit of creditors, unless intended so to operate. Davis v. Schwartz, 631. 2. The fact that the property so conveyed was much in excess of the debts

secured by the conveyance is not necessarily indicative of fraud; but in such cases the question of good faith is one of fact, and a mere error of judgment will not be imputed as a fraud. Ib.

3. The different transfers assailed in this suit examined, and, in the light of these rulings, held to be valid. Ib.

4. The different mortgages assailed in this suit were for several and separate interests; and the one to Kent not being of the amount requisite to give this court jurisdiction, the appeal as to him is dismissed. Ib.

MANDAMUS.

1. As mandamus will only lie to enforce a ministerial duty, as distinguished from a duty that is merely discretionary, and as the duty must exist at the time when the application is made, the Secretary of War cannot be required by mandamus to sign a contract for the performance of work by a party who is already under written contract with him to perform the same work for the government at a lower price and under different conditions. United States v. Lamont, 303. 2. A writ of mandamus cannot be issued to compel the court below to decide a matter before it in a particular way, or to review its judicial action had in the exercise of legitimate jurisdiction. In re Rice, Petitioner, 396.

3. A writ of mandamus cannot be used to perform the office of an appeal or writ of error, even if no appeal or writ of error is given by law. Ib. 4. The fact that, in the administration of the assets of an insolvent corporation in the custody of receivers, summary proceedings are resorted to, does not, in itself, affect the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, as having proceeded in excess of its powers, and, where notice has been given and hearing had, the result cannot properly be interfered with by mandamus. Ib.

MASTER IN CHANCERY.

See EQUITY, 13.

MUNICIPAL BONDS.

1. The act of the legislature of Arizona of February 21, 1883, authorizing Pima County in that Territory to issue its bonds in aid of the construction of a railway, is a violation of the restrictions imposed upon territorial legislatures by Rev. Stat. § 1889, as amended by the act of June 8, 1878, c. 168, and the bonds issued under the authority assumed to be conferred by that statute created no obligation against the county which a court of law can enforce. Lewis v. Pima County, 54.

2. A certificate, made and payable in a State out of a particular fund, and purporting to be the obligation of a municipal corporation existing under public laws and endowed with restricted powers, granted only for special and local purposes of a non-commercial character, is not governed by the law merchant, and is open in the hands of subsequent holders to the same defences as existed against the original payee. Indiana ex rel. Stanton v. Glover, 513.

3. The sureties on the bond of the trustee of a municipal township in Indiana are not subjected by the Revised Statutes of that State, §§ 6006, 6007, to liability for the payment of warrants or certificates which, apart from those sections, it was not within the authority of the trustee to execute, or which were fraudulent in themselves. Ib.

4. A township trustee in Indiana cannot contract a debt for school supplies unless supplies suitable and reasonably necessary for the township have been actually delivered to and accepted by it. lb.

NATIONAL BANK.

See CRIMINAL LAW, 10, 11.

NAVIGABLE RIVERS.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 6.

PARTIES.

See JURISDICTION, A, 6;
PRACTICE, 5.

PATENT FOR INVENTION.

1. Whether there was any novelty in the first claim in letters patent No. 144,818, issued November 18, 1873, to William Wright for an improvement in frames for horizontal engines, quare. Wright v. Yuengling, 47.

2. Inasmuch as the semi-circular connecting piece in that patented machine is described by the inventor as an essential feature of his invention and is made an element of claims 1 and 2, it must be regarded as such essential feature, and a device which dispenses with it does not infringe the patent. Ib.

3. When an invention is not a pioneer invention, the inventor is held to a rigid construction of his claims. Ib.

4. The second claim in the said patent is void for want of patentable novelty. Ib.

5. The combination of the cylindrical guide with the trough in that machine is not a patentable invention. Ib.

6. The fifth claim in reissued letters patent No. 9542, granted January 25, 1881, to Joseph Tilton and Rufus M. Stivers for a spring for vehicles, on the surrender of letters patent No. 157,430, dated December 1, 1874, is an expansion of the invention described in the original patent, and the reissue is thus invalidated. Olin v. Timken, 141.

7. Letters patent No. 197,689, granted November 27, 1877, to Henry Timken for improvement in carriage springs, are void for want of patentable novelty in the invention so patented. Ib.

8. Letters patent No. 239,850, granted April 5, 1881, to Cyrus W. Saladee for an improvement in spring-supports for vehicles, wagon-seats, etc., relate to a device which was anticipated by another invention made more than two years prior to the application for that patent, and reduced to practice prior to that application, and by other inventions named in the opinion of the court, and are void for want of patentable novelty. lb.

9. This court will not reverse the conclusions of the master, sustained by the court below, upon the extent of the infringement of a patent, when the evidence is conflicting, unless some obvious error or mistake is pointed out. Warren v. Keep, 265.

10. Where a patent is for a particular part of an existing machine, it is necessary, in order to establish a claim for substantial damages for infringement, to show what portion of the profits is due to the particular invention secured by the patent in suit; but when the patented invention is for a new article of manufacture, the patentee is entitled to damages arising from the manufacture and sale of the entire article. Ib.

11. The defendants not having set up in the court below a claim for an allowance of manufacturer's profits, or offered evidence by which it could be estimated, there is no foundation on which to base such a claim in this court. Ib.

12. The first claims in letters patent No. 223,812, issued January 27, 1880, to William F. Olin for an improvement in harvesters, describing a swinging elevator, located upon the grain (or ascending) side of the main belt, pivoted at its lower end and movable at its upper end, is not infringed by a similar device, located upon the stubble side, pivoted at its upper end, and swinging at its lower end. Deering v. Winona Harvester Works, 286.

13. When an inventor, who may be entitled to a broader claim than he makes, describes and claims only a part of his invention, he is presumed to have abandoned the residue to the public. Ib.

14. Oral testimony, unsupported by patents or exhibits, tending to show prior use of a patented device is open to grave suspicion. 1b.

15. Unsuccessful and abandoned experiments do not affect the validity of a subsequent patent. Ib.

16. The 20th claim in letters patent No. 272,598, issued February 20, 1883, to John F. Steward for an improvement in grain binders is valid, and was infringed by the appellees. 1b.

17. The 21st claim in those letters patent was not infringed by the appellees. Ib.

18. In letters patent No. 77,920, granted to Herman Royer and Louis Royer, May 12, 1868, for "an improved machine for treating hides," the first claim, viz., for "a vertical shaft," and the second claim, viz., for "a grooved weight," are restricted to a shaft and crib in a vertical position, and to a weight operating by the force of gravity aided by pressure; and they cannot be extended so as to include shafts and cribs in a horizontal position, and pressure upon the hides by means of false heads, actuated and controlled by gearing wheels, springs, and a crank. Coupe v. Royer, 565.

19. In jury trials in actions for the infringement of letters patent, it is the province of the court, when the defence denies that the invention used by the defendant is identical with that included in the plaintiff's

patent, to define the patented invention, as indicated by the language of the claims; and it is the province of the jury to determine whether the invention so defined covers the art or article employed by the defendant. Ib.

20. The measure of recovery in a suit in equity for such infringement is the gains and profits made by the infringer, and such further damage as the proof shows that the complainant sustained in addition to such gains and profits; but in an action at law the damages are measured only by the extent of the plaintiff's loss, as proved by the evidence, and, when the evidence discloses the existence of no license fee, no impairment of the plaintiff's market, no damages of any kind, the jury should be instructed, if they find for the plaintiff, to find nominal damages only. Ib.

21. The machine patented to Clayton Potts and Albert Potts by letters patent No. 322,393, issued July 14, 1885, for a new and useful improvement in clay disintegrators, and the machine patented to them by letters patent No. 368,898, issued August 23, 1887, for an improvement upon the prior patent, contained new and useful inventions, and the letters patent therefor are valid, and are infringed by the machines manufactured and sold by the defendants in error. Potts v. Creager, 597.

22. The cases treating of letters patent for new applications of old devices considered, and as a result of the authorities, it is held that, if the new use be so nearly analogous to the former one, that the applicability of the device to its new use would occur to a person of ordinary mechanical skill, it is only a case of double use; but if the relations between them be remote, and especially if the use of the old device produce a new result, it may involve an exercise of the inventive faculty — much depending upon the nature of the changes required to adapt the device to its new use. Ib.

23. The statutes of limitation of the several States apply to actions at law for the infringement of letters patent. Campbell v. Haverhill, 610. 24. If, upon the state of the art as shown to exist by prior patents, and upon a comparison of older devices with the patent sued on in an action for infringement, it appears that the patented claims are not novel, it becomes the duty of the court to so instruct the jury. Market Street Cable Railway Co. v. Rowley, 621.

25. The claims in letters patent No. 365,754, issued June 28, 1887, to Benjamin W. Lyon and Reuben Munro for " improvements in automatic top-feed lubricators for railroad car axle-box bearings," must be construed to cover any lubricator composed of an oil cup, an outlet pipe connecting the oil cup with the axle-box containing the axle and bearing, a plug or stopper, which closes the pipe when the vehicle is at rest and opening it when there is a jolting motion, and a gauge adapted to control and limit the movement of the stopper, and to thus regulate the flow of the oil; and, being so construed, the letters