the face of the record cannot be availed of in a collateral proceed-
ing. Ib.

20. In an action upon a contract to sell shares of stock to the plaintiff,
the defendant set up allegations of fraud. A jury was waived and
the court found separately and specifically upon all the allegations
respecting the contract, and that the contract set up in the complaint
was sustained by the evidence. No error was assigned or exceptions
taken. Held, (1) That this court cannot review those findings; (2)
that they are sufficient to sustain the judgment. Fox v. Haarstick, 674.
See APPEAL;

TAX AND TAXATION, 2.

B. OF CIRCUIT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES.

An averment that the plaintiff is "a citizen of London, England," is not
sufficient to give the Circuit Court jurisdiction on the ground of his
alienage, the defendant being a citizen; and on the question being
raised in this court, the case may be remanded with leave to apply to
the Circuit Court for amendment and for further proceedings. Stuart
v. Easton, 46.

C. OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS.

See PATENT FOR Invention, 7.

D. OF STATE COURTS.

1. In a personal action brought in a court of a State against a corporation
which neither is incorporated nor does business within the State, nor
has any agent or property therein, service of the summons upon its presi-
dent, temporarily within the jurisdiction, cannot be recognized as valid
by the courts of any other government. Goldey v. Morning News, 518.
2. A corporation sued in a personal action in a court of a State, within
which it is neither incorporated nor does business, nor has any agent
or property, does not, by appearing specially in that court for the sole
purpose of presenting a petition for the removal of the action into the
Circuit Court of the United States, and by obtaining a removal accord-
ingly, waive the right to object to the jurisdiction of the court for want
of sufficient service of the summons. Ib.

LACHES.

The delay of the plaintiffs for four years to assert their claim is, under
the circumstances, fatal to it. Evers v. Watson, 527.

MANDAMUS.

1. The judge in a Circuit Court having settled and signed a bill of excep-
tions, this court will not, on an application, supported by affidavits
that the bill as settled and signed is incorrect, issue a writ of man-
damus requiring him to resettle them. Streep, Petitioner, In re, 207.
2. A corporation organized under the laws of Pennsylvania brought an action
in ejectment in the Circuit Court of the United States in the Western
District of Virginia. The defendant by plea set up that a conveyance
of the land had been made to the Pennsylvania corporation collusively,
and for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction on the Circuit Court.
The court was of opinion that the allegations of the plea were sustained,
and dismissed the action for want of jurisdiction. The plaintiff duly
excepted and the exceptions were allowed and signed. The plaintiff
then prayed for a writ of error to this court upon the question of
jurisdiction, and a writ was allowed "as prayed for " at the same term
of court. At a subsequent term the plaintiff applied to the court
below for an order certifying the question of jurisdiction to this court
pursuant to § 5 of the Judiciary Act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, 26 Stat.
826. This application being denied, the plaintiff applied to this court
for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus requiring the court
below to certify the question of jurisdiction to this court. Held, that
leave should be denied, as, independently of other considerations, the
requisition of the statute in that respect had already been sufficiently
complied with. In re Lehigh Mining & Manufacturing Co., Petitioner,

322.

See CONTRACT;

JURISDICTION A, 11.

MASTER AND SERVANT.

See NEGLIGENCE.

MORTGAGE.

See EQUITY, 1;

JURISDICTION, A, 7;

TRUST, 3.

MUNICIPAL BOND.

1. July 3, 1869, the qualified voters of Perry County, Illinois, voted to sub-
scribe to the capital stock of the Belleville & Southern Illinois Rail-
road and to issue its bonds in payment thereof, conditioned that "no
bonds should be issued or stock subscribed until the railroad company
should locate their machine shops at Duquoin." In December, 1870,
the county court directed the bonds to be issued, and they were issued
and duly executed, and were delivered to the company and by it put
into circulation; but the shops were never located at Duquoin. Held,
in view of the legislation of Illinois reviewed in the opinion, and of

the provisions in the constitution of 1870, which came into force after
the vote to issue the bonds, but before their issue, that the county
court by its order to issue the bonds, and the county officers by issu
ing them, violated their duty as prescribed by the statutes; and as
the bonds contained no recital precluding inquiry as to the perform-
ance of the condition upon which the people voted in favor of their
issue, it was open to the county to show that it had not been per-
formed, which being shown, the bonds became subject to the provis-
ions of the constitution of 1870, and were invalid. Citizens' Saving &
Loan Association v. Perry County, 692.

2. The bonds issued by the same county to the Chester & Tamaroa Coal &
Railroad Company were issued in obedience to a vote of the people
taken at an election ordered and held with reference to the act of April
16, 1869, referred to in the opinion of this court, which act required that
a majority of the legal voters living in the county should be in favor
of the subscription; and as the county court, in ordering the issue of
the bonds, certified on its record that all the conditions prescribed had
been complied with, and as the fact that a majority of the voters liv-
ing in the county at the time of the election did vote for the issue of
the bonds is one not determinable by any public record, Held, that it
would be rank injustice to permit it to be set up after the lapse of so
many years, and that the issue was valid and the bonds are binding
on the county. lb.

NATIONAL BANK.
See EQUITY, 2;
INDICTMENT.

NEGLIGENCE.

1. Occupations which cannot be conducted without necessary danger to
life, body, or limb, should not be prosecuted without taking all reason-
able precautions against such danger afforded by science. Mather v.
Rillston, 391.

2. Neglect in such case to provide readily attainable appliances known to
science for the prevention of accidents, is culpable negligence. Ib.
3. If an occupation attended with danger can be prosecuted by proper
precaution without fatal results, such precaution must be taken, or
liability for injuries will follow, if injuries happen; and if laborers,
engaged in such occupation, are left by their employers in ignorance
of the danger, and suffer in consequence, the employers are chargeable
for their injuries. Ib.

PARTNERSHIP.

1. Where a deed is executed on behalf of a firm by one partner, the other
partner will be bound if there be either a previous parol authority
or a subsequent parol adoption of the act. McGahan v. Bank of
Rondout, 218.

2. In such case ratification by the other partner may be inferred from his
presence at the execution and delivery of the deed, or from his acting
under it or taking the benefits of it with knowledge. Ib.

PATENT FOR INVENTION.

1. The invention protected by letters patent No. 222,895, issued December
23, 1879, to William D. Gray for improvements in roller mills, is not
infringed by the machine used by the defendant in error. The Roller
Mill Patent, 261.

2. Letters patent No. 238,677, issued March 8, 1881, to William D. Gray
for improvements in roller mills, are void for want of novelty. Ib.
3. The improvement in sewer gratings patented to Henry W. Clapp by
letters patent No. 134,978, dated January 21, 1873, involved no inven-
tion. Palmer v. Corning, 342.

4. Letters patent 271,363, issued January 30, 1883, to James Ritty and
John Birch for a cash register and indicator, are valid, and are
infringed by the defendant's machine. National Cash Register Co. v.
Boston Cash Indicator Co., 502.

5. Even if there were findings sufficient to show that the United States
had in any manner infringed letters patent No. 52,925, granted Feb-
ruary 27, 1866, to Hiram Berdan for an improvement in breech-loading
fire-arms, in the absence of anything disclosing a contract the use
would be a tort, creating no cause of action cognizable in the Court of
Claims. United States v. Berdan Fire-arms Manufacturing Co., 552.
6. Where several elements, no one of which is novel, are united in a com-
bination which is the subject of a patent, and these several elements
are thereafter united with another element into a new combination,
and this new combination performs a work which the patented com-
bination could not perform, there is no infringement. Ib.

7. As to letters patent No. 88,436, granted to Hiram Berdan March 30,
1869, for an improvement in breech-loading fire-arms, it appears that
the use of that invention was with the consent and in accordance with
the wish of the inventor and the Berdan Company, and with the
thought of compensation therefor, which facts, taken in connec-
tion with other facts referred to in the opinion, establish a contractual
relation between the parties sufficient to give the Court of Claims
jurisdiction. Ib.

8. The contract was not a contract to pay at the expiration of the patent,
but the right to recover accrued with each use, and the statute of
limitations is applicable to all uses of the invention prior to six years
before the commencement of the action. Ib.

9. The Court of Claims did not err in fixing the amount of the royalty.
Ib.
10. If there be any invention in the machine patented to Martin R.
Roberts by reissued letters patent No. 7341 for an improvement in
coal screens and chutes, dated October 10, 1876, (upon which the

court expresses no opinion,) it is clear that it was not infringed by
the defendant's machine. Black Diamond Coal Co. v. Excelsior
Coal Co., 611.

11. The court takes judicial notice of the fact that hoppers with chutes
beneath them are used for many different purposes. Ib.

PLEADING.

The charges of fraud in this case are too vague to be made the basis of a
bill to set aside a judicial sale. Evers v. Watson, 527.

PRACTICE.

1. Applications to this court for a writ of error to a state court are not
entertained unless at the request of a member of the court, concurred
in by his associates. In re Robertson, 183.

2. A party who is not prejudiced by an erroneous ruling of the judge
in the trial below has no right to complain of it here. Lazarus v.
Phelps, 202.

3. It is unnecessary to consider in detail errors which do not appear in
the bill of exceptions, or which do not appear to have been excepted
to on the trial, or which seem to have been quite immaterial, so far as
excepted to. Bannon and Mulkey v. United States, 464.

4. An objection that the receiver took part with the register on the hear-
ing and decision of a case in the land office cannot be taken for the
first time in this court. Carr v. Fife, 494.

1. The grant of the Agua Caliente to Lazaro Pina by Governor Alvarado
in 1840 was a valid grant, and embraced the tract in controversy in
this action. Hays v. Steiger, 387.

2. Taking all the facts together, it is quite clear that the receiver and the
register affirmatively found the fact of abandonment. Carr v. Fife,
494.

3. The decision of the land office upon the questions involved in this case
was conclusive, unless the charges of fraud and conspiracy were sus-
tained, and it is evident that the court below carefully considered the
evidence on these points. Ib.

4. When a plaintiff seeks to invalidate a patent of land by averring mis-
conduct on the part of officials in a contest case, a complete record of
the proceedings is relevant and important. Ib.

5. In the absence of fraud and imposition the findings and decisions of the
land office cannot be reviewed as to the facts involved. Ib.

6. A., being qualified to make a homestead entry, entered in good faith