near as may be according to the practice of courts of equity of the United States; and that, by a final decree, the court shall settle and determine the question of the validity of the title and the boundaries of the grant or claim presented for adjudication,according to the law of nations, the stipulations of the treaty between the United States and the Republic of Mexico in 1848, and the treaty between the same powers in 1853, and the laws and ordinances of the government from which it is alleged to have been derived." article of this treaty bearing date subsequent to the day-twenty-fifth of September-when the minister and subscriber to this treaty on the part of the United States proposed to the government of Mexico to terminate the question of boundary, will be considered valid or be recognized by the United States, nor will any grants previously made be respected or be considered as obligatory which have not been located and duly recorded in the archives of Mexico." With such articles contained in the treaties, and their meaning, submitted to our consideration, we have no difficulty in holding that the question is whether the land in controversy was the property of the claimants before the treaties, and, if so, that its protection is guaranteed by the treaties as well as the law of nations. The next guide prescribed by the Act is a regard for "the laws and ordinances of the gov ernment from which it-the grant-is alleged to have been derived." 457]*The first rule of decision thus laid down by Congress for our guidance is that we are to have regard to the law of nations, and as to this it is sufficient to say that it is the usage of the civilized nations of the world, when territory is ceded, to stipulate for the property of its inhabitants. Henderson v. Poindexter, 25 U. S. 12 Wheat. 585 [6: 719]; United States v. Arredondo, 31 U. §. 6 Pet. 712_[8: 555]; United States v. Ritchie, 58 U. S.17 How.525 [15:236]. We adopt the language of Chief Justice Mar- In this part of our inquiry we shall draw our shall, in the case of United States v. Per- information from a treatise on the Spanish and cheman, 31 U. S. 7 Pet. 51, 86 [8:604, 617], as American land laws, recently published by follows: "It may not be unworthy of remark Matthew G. Reynolds, the United States atthat it is very unusual, even in cases of con-torney for the court of private land claims, and quest, for the conquerer to do more than to displace the sovereign and assume dominion over the country. The modern usage of nations, which has become law, would be violated; that sense of justice and of right which is acknowledged and felt by the whole civilized world would be outraged, if private property should be generally confiscated and private rights annulled. The people change their allegiance; their relation to their ancient Sovereign is dissolved; but their relations to each other and their rights of property remain undisturbed. If this be the modern rule, even in cases of conquest, who can doubt its application to the case of an amicable cession of territory?" which is referred to in the brief filed for the government in the present case. From this we learn that the general constituent Congress of Mexico passed, on August 18, 1824, a colonization law, providing for the colonization of the territories of the Republic; that New Mexico, at the date of the passing of this law, was a territory, and so continued until December 30, 1836, when it became a department. rected, when a grant is definitely made, to sign and give a document to serve as a title to the party in interest, it being stated therein that the grant is made in entire conformity with the provisions of the law, in virtue of which the possession shall be given. A code of colonization was adopted on November 21, 1828, which contains regulations for the colonization of the *territories, where-[459 by the political chiefs or governors of the territories are authorized to grant the public lands of their respective territories to contractors, families, or private persons, Mexicans, or forWe are next directed to consider the stipula-eigners, who may apply for them, and are ditions of the treaties between the two govern ments. The provisions of the treaty of 1848 relevant to the present subject are contained in its eighth article (9 Stat. at L. 929), and we find that they declare that "Mexicans now established in territories previously belonging to Mexico, and which remain for the future A question is raised in the brief for the govwithin the limits of the United States as de- ernment whether the courts of the United fined by the present treaty, shall be free to con- States can take judicial notice of the laws and tinue where they now reside, . . . retaining regulations of Mexico pertaining to grants property which they possess in said territories. made prior to the cession. It was said in FreIn the said territories, property of every mont v. United States, 58 U. S. 17 How. 557 kind now belonging to Mexicians not estab[15: 245], referring to a similar question under lished there shall be inviolably respected. The present owners, the heirs of these, and all Mexicans who may hereafter acquire said property by contract shall enjoy with respect to it guaranties equally ample as if the same belonged to citizens of the United States." 458]And in the ninth article it is further *provided that, pending the admission of such territories into the Union of the United States, Mexicans who reside therein "shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty and property, and secured in the free exercise of their religion without restriction." The sixth article of the treaty of 1853 (10 Stat. at L. 1035) provides that "no grants of land within the territory ceded by the first the treaties with Spain, ceding territories to the United States, "it is proper to remark that the laws of these territories under which titles were claimed were never treated by the court as foreign laws, to be decided as a question of fact. It was always held that the court was bound judicially to notice them, as much so as the laws of a state of the Union. In doing this, however, it was undoubtedly often necessary to inquire into official customs and forms and usages.' The same position was asserted in the case of United States v. Perot, 98 U. S. 428 [25: 251]. It is, indeed, suggested that the seventh section of the Act establishing the court of private land claims, in respect that it provides that | carried off the testimonio or official copy of the "the decree shall, in all cases, refer to the treaty, grant; that since 1833 the settlers and their law, or ordinance under which such claim is children have lived upon and cultivated the confirmed or rejected," implies a contrary view. land. He further stated that when they ap We do not so regard that provision, nor do we plied for the grant from the government, an perceive, in any features of the Act, an intention Indian, named Francisco Baca, was on the on the part of Congress to restrict the powers land, and that it was made a condition that the of the court recognized by the previous deci- Indian would abandon it. sions. We shall now proceed to apply these principles to the facts of the case. It is conceded by the government's brief that the claimants or their ancestors did come to Cubero in 1833, and were put in possession of the lands claimed, and have held them ever 460]since. *But it is contended that there is no sufficient evidence that the title asserted by the claimant was lawfully and regularly derived from the government of Spain or Mexico, or from any of the states of the Republic of Mexico having lawful authority to make grants of land, as prescribed by section 13 of the Act; and it is said that the only title and interest acquired by the claimants was purchased by these settlers from one Francisco Baca, a Navajo Indian. We have examined the evidence on this point contained in the record, and are of opinion that it warranted the finding of the court below that the complainants' title was derived from the Republic of Mexico, and was complete and perfect at the date when the United States acquired sovereignty in the territory of New Mexico, within which the land was situated. Without undertaking to give the evidence in full, we shall briefly state its principal features: Penito Baca, a witness on behalf of the claimants, testified that he was eighty years old, and had resided on these lands since the year 1833; that the settlers were put in possession by the government; that Sarracino was governor, who held the government at Santa Fé. He enumerated by name a number of the colonists, and stated that there was in their possession a written grant from the governor, which he had heard read and had seen; that this writing, which was in the custody of Juan Chaves, could not be found after the death of the latter. He also described the boundaries of the grant, and testified that portions of these lands were distributed among the settlers, twenty-five varas to each, and that the remaining land was given for the common use, for the stock of all. Jose Antonio Duran testified that he was ninety-two years of age; that he was one of the settlers of the town of Cubero in the year 1833, and had there resided ever since; that their title was a written title, made to them by Francisco Sarracino, the governor. He gave a description of the boundaries of the land and the names of some of the original settlers of 1833. He stated that Don Juan Chaves and Don Juan Garcia, as commissioners, put them in possession. The witness could read and write Spanish, and he had seen and read the writ461] ten title *from the governor, Sarracino. He testified that when Juan Chaves died the title paper was missing, and that it was cur rently reported that one Vicente Margarito Hernandez, who had been his secretary, had Pablo Pino was a witness, eighty-two years of age, and had lived in the town of Cubero for forty-eight years, where he had purchased some land from the original settlers, in possession of which he had remained ever since. Pedro Molina, eighty years of age, was one of the original settlers in 1833, and had lived with his children on these lands, and cultivated them ever since. Juan Duran had lived in Cubero since 1833. His father and grandfather were original settlers. He had heard the original grant read. The papers were in the possession and read by Juan Garcia and one Juan Chaves, judge and cominissioner. That it was one of the conditions before they were allowed to settle that they should buy the claim of Francisco Baca, the Navajo Indian. This witness testified to the tradition that the title papers of the grant had been stolen or carried away by Vicente Margarito Hernandez. The witness had been a school teacher for many years; could read and write Spanish, and had seen the original testimonio of the grant and heard it read, and that it was given by the governor, Francisco Sarracino. The record likewise contains translations of documents found in the archives of Valencia county, pertaining to a dispute between the town of Cubero and the pueblo of Laguna as to boundaries. These papers were dated in 1835, 1840, and 1841, and disclose a settlement of the dispute, certified to by Jose Francisco Chavez of Baca, judge commissioner in the second district of the department of New Mexico. In this certificate the lands within Cubero are stated to have been purchased from Francisco Baca, the Navajo. *A number of original deeds were like-[462 wise in evidence, variously dated from 1841 to 1856, showing sales of parcels of these lands; also a petition by the people of the town of Cubero to the surveyor general of the territory of New Mexico, dated April 2, 1856, stating that they were in possession under authority of a grant from the Mexican government about the year 1834; that the original documents were lost; and asking that their lands should be surveyed, etc. The claimants likewise proved, by quite a number of witnesses, residents of the territory of New Mexico, that about 1870 a considerable portion of the archives of that territory, containing documents relating to Mexican grants made to lands within that territory, were lost; that these papers were deposited in the territorial library, where some of the witnesses had seen them in 1868 and 1869; that they were sold as waste papers by the librarian, Bond, and were scattered through the country. Many of these were Spanish documents and pertained to grants of land. When the governor of the territory heard that there was a complaint made by the people of this treatment of public archives, he made efforts to get them under a grant from the governor of New Mexico, who, under the laws then in force, had authority to make the grant. However, we do not wish to be understood as undervaluing the fact of a possession so long and uninterrupted as disclosed in this case. With-[464 out going at length into the subject, it may be safely said that by the weight of authority, as well as the preponderance of opinion, it is the general rule of American law that a grant will be presumed upon proof of an adverse, exclusive, and uninterrupted possession for twenty years, and that such rule will be apby possibility, a right may be acquired in any manner known to the law. 1 Greenl. Ev. (12th ed.) § 17; Ricard v. Williams, 20 U. S. 7 Wheat. 109 [5: 410]; Coolidge v. Learned, 8 Pick. 504. returned, but the evidence is clear that many | these settlers were put in juridical possession of them were destroyed and lost. The claim ants also called as a witness William M. Tipton, who had been employed for several years in the office of the surveyor general of the territory of New Mexico, and had charge of the Spanish and Mexican archives. He testified that the books and records in that office purporting to contain the registry of land grants made by the Spanish and Mexican governments, prior to the time the government of the United States took charge, are in a disconnected, fragmentary form, and that one of the most important books, containing a record of grants made by the Spanish and Mexican gov-plied as a presumptio juris et de jure, wherever, ernments, is missing, and is supposed to have been stolen. He also stated that there was not in the surveyor general's office any index of the dates, list of original expedientes or warrants of title to Spanish and Mexican grants. This evidence was adduced to sustain the allegation in the petition that the governor and chief alcalde delivered to the settlers a duplicate 463]of the granting decree and of the act *of juridical possession of the chief alcalde in the premises, and placed the originals of said decree and act in the Mexican archives at Santa Fé, and that said originals, with a great part of other valuable archives of the Mexican government, although once in the custody of the United States after the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, were negligently destroyed or lost. The only evidence adduced by the United States was the testimony of Ira M. Bond, who had acted as territorial librarian in 1869 and 1870, and who testified that, under instructions of Governor Pile, he had sold and disposed of a lot of the old records, supposing them to be of no value; that this created quite a talk in the town; that, finally, the governor instructed him to recover them back, and that most, but not all of them, were recovered. This witness said that he could not read Spanish; that these documents were in that language, and that there might have been grants among them. In view of this large body of uncontradicted evidence we think that the court below was plainly right in finding that the claimants had satisfactorily sustained the allegations of their petition. Not only was their evidence of the existence of an original grant by the govern ment of New Mexico, and of the loss of original records sufficient to justify the introduction of secondary evidence, but there is the weighty fact that for nearly sixty years the claimants and their ancestors have been in the undisturbed possession and enjoyment of this tract of land. The counsel for the government, indeed, contend that the court of private land claims and this court have no power to presume a grant upon proof of long-continued possession only; that their power is confined to confirming grants lawfully and regularly derived from Spain and Mexico. It is scarcely necessary for us to consider such a question, because, as we have seen, there is ample evidence from which to find that 220 Nothing, it is true, can be claimed by prescription which owes its origin to, and can only be had by, matter of record; but lapse of time accompanied by acts done, or other circumstances, may warrant the jury in presuming a grant or title by record. Thus, also, though lapse of time does not, of itself, furnish a conclusive bar to the title of the sovereign, agreeably to the maxim, Nullum tempus occurrit regi; yet, if the adverse claim could have a legal commencement, juries are advised or instructed to presume such commencement, after many years of uninterrupted possession or enjoyment. Accordingly, royal grants have been thus found by the jury, after an indefinitely long-continued peaceful enjoyment, accompanied by the usual acts of ownership. 1 Greenl. Ev. § 45. The principle upon which this doctrine rests is one of general jurisprudence, and is recognized in the Roman law and the codes founded thereon (Best, Ev. § 366), and was therefore a feature of the Mexican law at the time of the cession. Finally, the rule of the law of nations, that private property ceded by one nation to another, when held by a title vested before the act of cession, should be respected; the express provisions to that effect contained in the treaty between Mexico and the United States; the evidence of the fact of a grant, legal under the forms of Mexican law, and of a juridical possession given thereunder; and the strong presumption growing out of an exclusive and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of more than half a century, bring us to concur in the decree of the court below. *The_objection that the Atlantic & [465 Pacific Railroad Company, as grantee from the United States of a part of the tract in question, was a necessary party defendant, has not been pressed in argument, and we only notice it to say that, under the provisions of the fifth section of this Act, the private rights of third par ties are not affected by any proceeding or decree under said Act. The decree of the court below is affirmed. 159 U. S. THE INCANDESCENT LAMP PATENT. | secure a cheap and effective apparatus; and (See S. C. Reporter's ed. 465-477.) The claims of the Sawyer and Man patent No. 817.076, issued May 12, 1885, for an incandescing conductor for an electric lamp, composed of carbonized fibrous or textile material, are (except the third claim) too indefinite to sustain the pat ent, and it is therefore invalid. [No. 10.] Argued October 29, 30, 1894. Decided November 11, 1895. a decree Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissing a suit in equity brought by the Consolidated Electric Light Company against the McKeesport Light Company to recover damages for the infringement of letters patent, 317,076, issued May 12, 1885, to the Electro Dynamic Light Company, assignee of Sawyer and Man, for an electric light, and holding the patent to be invalid. Affirmed. See same case below, 40 Fed. Rep. 21. Statement by Mr. Justice Brown: This was a bill in equity, filed by the Consolidated Electric Light Company against the McKeesport Light Company, to recover damages for the infringement of letters patent No. 317,076, issued May 12, 1885, to the ElectroDynamic Light Company, assignee of Sawyer and Man, for an electric light. The defendants justified under certain patents to Thomas A. Edison, particularly No. 223,898, issued January 27, 1880; denied the novelty and utility of the complainant's patent, and averred that the same had been fraudulently and ille gally procured. The real defendant was the Edison Electric Light Company, and the case involved a contest between what are known as the Sawyer and Man and the Edison systems of electric lighting. 466] *In their application, Sawyer and Man stated that their invention related to "that class of electric lamps employing an incandescent conductor enclosed in a transparent, hermetically sealed vessel or chamber, from which oxygen is excluded, and . . . more especially to the incandescing conductor, its substance, its form, and its combination with the other elements composing the lamp. Its object is to NOTE-As to assignments of patents, their construc- | tion and effect; licenses to use patents; royalties, see note to Dalzell v. Dueber Watch Case Mfg. Co. 87: 749. As to anticipation of patents; prior patents and publications; application and issue; claims and specifications, see note to Leggett v. Standard Oil Co. 37: 737. As to patents for designs, when valid, see note to Smith v. Whitman Saddle Co. 37: 606. As to patentability of inventions; patentable subject-matter; utility; what constitutes invention; patentable novelty; combinations; foreign patents and their effects, see note to Grant v. Walter, 37: 553. As to reissued patents for inventions, when valid; effect of issue; laches, see note to National Meter Co. ▼. Yonkers Water Comrs. 37: 614. our improvement consists, first, of the combination, in a lamp chamber composed wholly of glass, as described in patent No. 205,144," upon which this patent was declared to be an improvement, "of an incandescing conductor of carbon made from a vegetable fibrous material, in contradistinction to a similar conducor made from mineral or gas carbon, and also in the form of such conductor so made from such vegetable carbon, and combined in the lighting circuit with the exhausted chamber of the lamp." The following drawings exhibit the substance of the invention: *The specification further stated that: [467 "In the practice of our invention we have made use of carbonized paper, and also wood carbon. We have also used such conductors or burners of various shapes, such as pieces with their lower ends secured to their respective supports and having their upper ends united so as to form an inverted V-shaped burner. We have also used conductors of vary. ing contours-that is, with rectangular bends instead of curvilinear ones; but we prefer the arch shape." ilarity of devices; designs; combinations; machines; construction of patent, see note to Royer v. Coupe, 36: 1073. For what patents are ganted; when declared void, see note to Evans v. Eaton, 4: 433. As to assignment before issuing and reissuing patent; recording; when assignment transfers extended terms, see note to Gayler v. Wilder, 13: 504. As to when assignee may sue for infringement; when patentee must; when they must join, see note to Wilson v. Rousseau, 11: 1141. As to damages for infringement of patent; treble damages, see note to Hogg v. Emerson, 13: 824. As to including process and product in same patent; separate patents therefor, see note to Evans v. Eaton, 4: 433. As to what reissue may cover, see note to O'Reilly As to what constitutes infringement of patents; sim- v. Morse, 14: 601. "No especial description of making the illuminating carbon conductors, described in this specification and making the subject-matter of this improvement, is thought necessary, as any of the ordinary methods of forming the materi.. to be carbonized to the desired shape and size, and carbonizing it while confined in retorts in powdered carbon, substan tially according to the methods in practice before the date of this improvement, may be adopted in the practice thereof by any one skilled in the arts appertaining to the making of carbons for electric lighting or for other use in the arts." "An important practical advantage which is secured by the arch form of incandescing carbon is that it permits the carbon to expand and contract under the varying temperatures to which it is subjected when the electric current is turned on or off, without altering the position of its fixed terminals. Thus the necessity for a special mechanical device to compensate for the expansion and contraction which has heretofore been necessary is entirely dispensed with, and thus the lamp is materially simplified in its construction. Another advantage of the arch form is that the shadow cast by such burners is less than that produced by other forms of burners when fitted with the necessary devices to support them." "Another important advantage resulting from our construction of the lamp results from the fact that the wall forming the chamber of the lamp through which the electrodes pass to the interior of the lamp is made wholly of glass, by which all danger of oxidation, leakage, or short circuiting is avoided." "The advantages resulting from the manufacture of the carbon from vegetable, fibrous, or 468]textile material instead of *mineral or gas carbon are many. Among them may be mentioned the convenience afforded for cutting and making the conductor in the desired form and size, the purity and equality of the carbon obtained, its susceptibility to tempering, both as to hardness and resistance, and its toughness and durability. We have used such burners in closed or hermetically sealed transparent chambers, in a vacuum, in nitrogen gas, and in hydrogen gas; but we have obtained the best results in a vacuum or an attenuated atmosphere of nitrogen gas, the great desideratum being to exclude oxygen or other gases capable of combining with carbon at high temperatures from the incandescing chamber, as is well understood." The claims were as follows: "1. An incandescing conductor for an electric lamp, of carbonized fibrous or textile material and of an arch or horseshoe shape, substantially as herein before set forth." "2. The combination, substantially as herein before set forth, of an electric circuit and an incandescing conductor of carbonized fibrous material, included in and forming part of said circuit, and a transparent hermetically sealed chamber in which the conductor is inclosed." "3. The incandescing conductor for an electric lamp, formed of carbonized paper, substantially as described." "4. An incandescing electric lamp consists of the following elements in combination: first, an illuminating chamber made wholly of glass hermetically sealed, and out of which all carbon-consuming gas has been exhausted or driven; second, an electric circuit conductor passing through the glass wall of said chamber and hermetically sealed therein, as described; third, an illuminating conductor in said circuit, and forming part thereof within said chamber, consisting of carbon made from a fibrous or textile material, having the form of an arch or loop, substantially as described, for the purpose specified." The commercial Edison lamp used by the appellee, and which is illustrated below, is composed of a burner, A, made of carbonized bamboo of a peculiar quality discovered by Mr. Edison to be highly useful for the purpose, and having a length of about six inches, a diame. ter of about five one *thousandths of an [469 inch, and an electrical resistance of upwards of 100 ohms. This filament of carbon is bent into the form of a loop, and its ends are secured by good electrical and mechanical connections to two fine platinum wires B B. These wires pass through a glass stem, C, the glass being melted and fused upon the platinum wires. A glass globe, D, is fused to the glass stem C. This glass globe has originally attached to it, at the point d, a glass tube, by means of which a connection is made with highly organized and refined exhausting apparatus, which produces in the globe a high vacuum, whereupon the glass tube is melted off by a flame, and the globe is closed by the fusion of the glass at the point d. Upon a hearing in the circuit court before Mr. Justice Bradley upon pleadings and proofs, the court held the patent to be invalid, and dismissed the bill. 40 Fed. Rep. 21. Thereupon complainant appealed to this court. |