18. No actioncan be maintained against an executor or administrator, founded on a debt due from the estate of the deceased, unless he has been duly qualified by a probate tribunal in the State or county where the suit is brought. Caldwell v. Harding, 501
19. An action at law will not lie in this Court against an administrator ap- pointed by a probate Court in Massa- chusetts, but who had never taken out letters of administration in New York, to recover a debt due from the deceased to the plaintiff. id.
See PLEADING, 9 to 15. SLANDER.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 9. 1
1. To sustain a libel in rem against a vessel owned in New York, for repairs put upon her at Baltimore, the neces- sity for the repairs and for a lien upon the vessel to enable the master to procure them, must be shown. James Guy,
In the cases of Thomas v. Osborn, (19 How., 22,) and Pratt v. Reed, (Id., 359,) the rule which requires evidence of an apparent necessity, existing at the time, for supplying, on the credit of a vessel, supplies furnished to her at a foreign port, in order to create a lien on her in favor of a material man, was not extended beyond its an- cient strictness, as to the degree of proof required. The Neversink, 539
4. Where the master of a steamer had no funds to pay for coal, and her char-, terers, who owned her pro hac vice, resided in a foreign jurisdiction, and the coal was a necessary supply, and it was obtained by the master, and credit therefor was, in fact, given to the vessel and her charterers: Held, that a lien was created on the vessel therefor. id.
5. The same thing was held in a case where the material man resided at the home port of the vessel and furnished the coal at the foreign port, through an agent there. id.
6. The sufficiency of the proof of an apparent necessity must, in every such case, rest in the sound judgment of the Court. id.
7. General rules stated, for determining
1. The two years' limitation in regard to the bringing of suits by or against an assignee of a bankrupt, prescribed in the 8th section of the Bankruptcy Act of August 19th, 1841, (5 U. S. Stat. at Large, 446,) applies only to suits growing out of disputes in re- spect to property and rights of prop- erty of the bankrupt, which come to the hands of the assignee, and to which adverse claims existed while in the hands of the bankrupt and be- fore the assignment. In re Conant, 54
2. Such limitation has no reference to suits growing out of the dealings of the assignee with the estate after it comes into his hands. id.
3. By the decision of the Court of Ap- peals of New York, in the case of Ol- cott v. The Tioga R. R. Co., (20 N. Y. R., 210,) it is the law of New York, that, in a suit against a corporation, the fact that the defendants were and are a corporation created by another State, and not under any law of New York, is a legal answer to a plea of the statute of limitations. Blossburg & Corning R. R. Co., v. Tioga R. R. Co.,
to a plea of the statute of limitations pleaded by a foreign corporation, is to allege, in proper technical language, and with the requisite certainty of time and place, the fact that the de- fendants were out of the State at the time the cause of action accrued, and continued out of the State down to the time of the commencement of the suit. id.
An allegation, in the replication, that they were out of the State when the cause of action accrued, is, however, a sufficient legal answer to the plea of actio non accrevit injra sex annos. id.
An allegation, in the replication, that they were and are a corporation exist- ing under the laws of another State, and that they were not and are not a corporation existing under any law of New York, is not a sufficient an- swer to such plea, because it fails to aver that the defendants were a for- eign corporation before and at the time the cause of action accrued, and does not allege that they had never been a corporation under the laws of New York. id.
Objections to the replication for not alleging time and place, and for du- plicity, can be taken only by special demurrer. id.
On demurrer by the defendants to the plaintiff's surrejoinder, judgment was given for the plaintiff, because the defendants, in their rejoinder, committed the first fault in plead- ing.
See HABEAS CORPUS, 1, 3, 4.
6. Under that section of the Code, the 1. Marshal law, defined. most appropriate form of replication |
4. Where a person was tried by a Mili- tary Commission, in South Carolina, in November, 1865, for a murder committed in September, 1865, and was convicted and sentenced to im- prisonment for life in the Penitentiary at Albany, New York, hostilities hav- ing terminated and the rebel army having surrendered to the authorities of the United States some seven months before the trial: Held, on a habeas corpus, that the prisoner was entitled to be discharged, on the ground that the conviction was ille- gal, for want of jurisdiction in the tribunal. id.
1. Under the Act of the Legislature of New York, of April 10th, 1850, (Sess. Laws, 1850, chap. 283,) authorizing the Commissioners of the Land Office of the State to grant lands under the waters of navigable rivers or lakes, and providing that no such grant shall be made to any person other than the proprietor of the adjacent lands, the grant must be confined to a line starting at the intersection with the shore, and extending at a
1. Patents Generally. (1 to 22.) 2. Invention.
3. Infringement. (23, 24.) 4. Reissue. (25 to 33.) 5. Particular Patents.
(1.) Meyer's-Grease. (34, 35.) (2.) Meyer's-Tin-Foil. (36 to 39.) (3.) Morton's-Ether. (40 to 42.) (4.) Hussey's-Reaping Machine. (43, 44.)
(5.) Treadwell's-Cannon. (45 to
(6.) Goodyear's-Hard India rub- ber. (48 to 54.)
(7.) Kirby's Harvesting Machine. (55 to 60.)
(8.) Yale's-Locks. (61 to 66.) (9.) Woodward's-Hoops for Skirts. (67 to 70.)
1. At common law, an inventor has no
It is no objection, in a suit in Equi- ty for the infringement of Letters Patent, to granting to the plaintiff, on the final hearing, relief by a per- petual injunction and an account of profits, that the patent has not been established at law, and that no pre- liminary injunction has been applied for or granted in the suit, and that the plaintiff has not applied for the trial of issues to determine the ques- tions of the validity of the patent and of its infringement, raised by the defendant. Buchanan v. Howland,
7. Under the 16th section of the Act of July 4th, 1836, as amended by the 10th section of the Act of March 3d, 1839, a Circuit Court has power, on a bill filed to declare a patent void, not only to decree a final remedy, but to grant a preliminary injunction to restrain the sale or use of the pat- ent pending the suit. Potter v. Dix- on, 160
8. In a patent for an "improvement in lanterns," the process of causing "the attachment of the lamp to the lantern by the operation of pressing the lantern down upon the spring catches" is not well distinguishable from the process of causing the at- tachment by pressing the lamp upwards through the aperture into
12. Where one claim in a patent claimed a combination of three mechanisms, and another claim in the same patent described and claimed the particular manner in which the three mechan- isms were combined and made effect- ive in producing the particular re- sult: Held, that the two claims claimed the same invention. Tomp- kins v. Gage,
15. A claim construed in the light of the preceding and descriptive parts id. of the specification.
16. In construing a specification as against an objection that it points out no means by which a particular ar- rangement can be made to operate successfully, where a mechanical equivalent is introduced in place of VOL. V.-38
17. Disapprobation expressed by the Court, as to the loose manner in which the specifications of patents id. are very often drawn up.
18. Under the 11th section of the Act of March 2d, 1861, (12 U. S. Stat. at Large, 248,) a patent for a design for a reel, consisting of the making of the reel in the shape of a well known mathematical figure, the reel itself, as an article of manufacture, being old, is not valid. Wooster v. Crane, 282
19. An intelligent mechanic is charge- able with a knowledge of the state of the art in relation to a subject on which he is called to exercise his skill. Treadwell v. Parrott,
20. What is the business of a mechanic, as distinguished from that of an in- id. ventor, defined.
21. Under the 5th section of the Act of August 29th, 1842, (5 U. S. Stat. at Large, 544,) a person who marks as patented an unpatented article, is not liable to the penalty therein pre- scribed, unless he does so knowing that he has no right to do so, and with the intention of deceiving the public. Walker v. Hawxhurst, 494
22. In an action for the penalty, the question as to such intention is one id. for the jury.
See COSTS, 1 to 7.
INJUNCTION, 5.
PLEADING, 1, 2. PRACTICE, 8, 9.
See 9, 20, 40 to 42, 59, 70.
23. The charge of infringement will not be avoided by making an unnecessary
« AnteriorContinuar » |