tizen of the right of suing in a Circuit Court, on the ground of his not being a citizen of any particular state, there ought to be very strong evi- dence of his being a mere wanderer, without a home. Rabaud v. D'Wolf. 580
20. The averment of the citi- zenship of the parties, to give jurisdiction to a Circuit Court, is a necessary averment, and must be proved under the ge- neral issue. Catlett v. Pacific Insurance Company. 21. It is not necessary that a citi- zen, removing from a territory of the United States, or a state, into another state, should ac- quire all the rights of a citizen of the state into which he re- moves, by the laws of such state. It is sufficient if he ac- quire a domicil there. Yet the declaration must aver that he is a citizen of the state: not sufficient to aver that he is a resident. Difficulty of understanding the term citi- zen, as used in the constitu- tion. 22. If one make such removal with the avowed object of ac quiring a right to sue in the Circuit Courts, but with the intention of a permanent resi- dence, and not to return, it is not a fraud upon the law. ib. 23. The District Courts have a general Admiralty jurisdiction in suits by material men in rem. In cases of foreign ships, or ships of another state, the maritime law gives the lien. But in cases of domestic ships, no lien is implied; but if the
invention be matter of fact to be left to the jury, or whether the Court are to decide it as matter of law? Quere. ib. 3. But, it seems, that if on the plaintiff's own showing, the in- vention appears to be useless, and an imposition on the pub- lic, the Court should so direct the jury. *ib. 4. An invention of an ornamen- tal mode of putting up thread, which gave it no additional va- lue, but merely made it sell more readily at retail, and for a larger price, was held not useful, within the meaning of the patent law. ib. 5. Specification held bad for un- certainty. ib. 6. A patent, under the law of 1793, is valid, although the invention may have been in use for years anterior to the patent, if the patentee was the original inventor. Goodyear v. Mathews. 7. A patent for an entire ma- chine is valid, although the invention consists only of an improvement on such ma- chine; but the patentee is en- titled to an exclusive use of no more than his improvement. ib. 8. The first section of the pa- tent law of 1793, construed in connexion with the other sec- tions of the act, means that the invention should not be known or used as the invention of any other person than the paten- tee before the application for a patent. Morris v. Hunting-
If the invention have got into use while the inventor was practising upon it with a view
to improve it before applying for a patent, such use does not invalidate the patent; and the motive for the delay is a ques- tion for the jury. ib. 10. One who has patented his invention cannot take out a new patent for the same in- vention, until the first is sur- rendered, repealed, or de- clared void.. ib. 11. The obstacle of an invalid patent may be removed by having it declared void after a verdict against it, or by hav- ing a vacatar entered ex parte in the Department of State on a surrender of the patent. But the provisions of the 6th section of the act, do not ena- ble a patentee to declare his own patent void, and a verdict in a suit on the second patent in favor of such patent, does not avoid the first patent. ib. 12. It seems that on surrender-
ing a patent and taking out a new one, the latter should be for only the unexpired part of the fourteen years since ob- taining the first patent. ib. 13. Whether a new patent can be taken out where a patent has been declared void under the 6th section of the act? Quere.
14. On an application for an in- junction to restrain the in- fringement of a patent right, it should be stated in the bill, or by affidavit, that the com- plainant is the inventor: and the bill must be sworn to. It is not sufficient that he swore to this fact when he obtained his patent. Sullivan v. Red- field.
15. To obtain the injunction, the
case should be such as to leave little if any doubt in the minds of the Court, as to the validity of the patent; especially if it rests upon the complainant's own showing without any op- posing testimony. ib. 16. The act of the 15th of Fe- bruary, 1819, does not alter the principles on which in- junctions are granted, but merely extends the jurisdic- tion of the Circuit Courts to parties not before falling with- in it. ib. 17. The established rules which govern Courts of Equity, on such applications are, that where there has been an ex- clusive possession of some du- ration, under the patent, an in- junction will be granted with- out putting the party previous- ly to establish the validity of his patent at law. But where the patent is recent, and it is attempted to be shown that the specification is bad, or other- wise that the patent ought not to have been granted, the Court will not take the deci- sion upon itself, but will send the party to establish his pa- tent at law. ib. 18. A patent for an improvement should describe the machine in use, that it may be known in what the improvement con- sists. ib. 19. One had patented, "a new
and useful improvement in the steam tow-boat," but the spe- cification did not mention the invention as an improvement, but simply described a tow- boat: Held, that the specifi-
cation was broader than the patent, and therefore bad. ib. 20. The invention should be so clearly described, as to enable the public to put it in use. ib. 21. The specification described the invention, as "consisting essentially in attaching the packet to the steam-boat, with ropes, chains, or spars, so as to communicate the power of the engine from the towing vessel to the vessel taken in tow, and kept always at conve- nient distance, the manner of applying the power, varying with the circumstances in some measure:" held bad for un- certainty, and as describing a well known natural power, and not an invention.
CONDITION. Covenant. INSU- RANCE. JURISDICTION, 20, 21, 22. PRACTICE, 7. SHIPS, 9.
The Common Law practice of the State Courts, is not con- sidered as the practice of the Circuit Courts, except as it existed at the passage of the act of 1789, and so far as it has since been adopted by rule. Brewster v. Gelston. 426 Although the law of the state requiring the Supreme Court to decide on a bill of excep- tions, before a writ of error is brought, does not govern the practice of this Court, yet a bill of exceptions was re-
ceived as a substitute for a case on a motion for a new trial. ib.
3. Where a party dies during term, the judgment may be en- tered in this Court as of a day antecedent to his death. Gris- wold v. Hill. 483 4. But there is this difference, in this respect, between its equity proceedings and those of the English Court of Chan- cery, that this Court is open only during term, and a decree cannot be entered if the death occurred before the beginning of the term. ib. 5. Where an order for the dis- missal of a bill was taken er parte, the complainant having avowed his intention not to pursue the cause any further, on a motion to vacate the or- der, on the ground that the de- fendant died before it was en- tered; held, that it was not distinguishable, in principle, from the case of death after argument,but before judgment, and that the order might be en- tered antecedent to the death. ib.
6. There is no practice in this Court of service of papers upon the agent of an attorney, as in the Supreme Court of the state. Smith v. Jackson. 486 7. In an action of scire facias, there was no declaration, but the writ of seire facias was de- murred to: Held, that the le- gal effect was the same as if the demurrer had been to the declaration, and the same judg- ment was ordered to be enter- ed. People of Vermont v. So-
1. The defendant had sold the complainant a bill of exchange on a house in London, and re- ceived the complainant's note for the price, but kept the bill by agreement, as security for its payment. The bill was protested, the drawers became bankrupt, and dividends were declared upon their estates. The defendant refused to re- turn the bill to the complain- ant, but made no effort to re- cover the amount or to obtain the dividends. He was held liable for any loss that might have happened by such negli- gence. Childs v. Corp Where an agent of the War Department was empowered to make a contract, which re- served no right of ratification to the Secretary, it was held complete and binding without such ratification. United States v. Tillotson.
« 上一頁繼續 » |