OFFICIAL, PUBLIC · - PATENTS. 145 invention, and it was held that the plaintiff's patent was not anticipated by the letters-patent of Croll, granted in 1840, nor by those of Laming in 1847, and that a patent might legally be granted, 1st, for applying hydrated oxides to absorb sulphuretted hydrogen from coal gas, and, 2d, for reoxidizing iron by exposure to the air after it had been used in the purification of coal gas. Hills v. London Gas-Light Co., 5 Hurlst. & Norm. 312; 5 Gas J. 671. Defence. 3. Worthless Patent. Fraud. Contract. In an action on a contract by which the plaintiff covenants to improve machinery for manufacturing gas, and to obtain a patent. therefor, and to assign to the defendant one half of such patent, the defendant to pay $1,000 when the patent is issued, it was held that in such action to recover the $1,000, after the plaintiff has obtained the patent and assigned one half of it to defendant, the defendant may allege and prove that the plaintiff falsely represented that he had invented a machine for manufacturing gas from benzol; that the alleged improvement was worthless, and had been abandoned as worthless before the patent was issued to the plaintiff. McDougall v. Fogg, 2 Bosworth (N. Y. Superior Court), 387 (1858). Public 4. Results of Official Investigation not Patentable. Officer. Referees were appointed under an act of Parliament to inquire into the impurities of the London gas, with the right to require the gas companies to afford them facilities for their investigations, and as a result of their examinations one of the number thought he had discovered a method of securing greater purity in the gas. The impurities complained of came from certain compounds of sulphur. The defendant company had experimented in the matter, and had been using lime in the purifiers, and this, with the contents of the purifiers, formed sulphide of calcium, with which the sulphur impurities combined. The carbonic acid of the gas impeded the action of the sulphide of calcium, and the result was that the gas came out too impure for use, and could not always be relied on to come out with the same degree of purity. The gist of the plaintiff's change consisted in keeping more lime in the first set of purifiers, and in this way the carbonic acid was more effectually removed, and the subsequent processes of removing the sulphur impurities by sulphide of lime were much more effective. The change was suggested to the defendant company by the referees, and the latter tried it with success. The referees made their report, incorporating these suggestions and experiments; but the report was withheld from publication to enable the plaintiff, one of the referees, to get out a patent. In an action for infringement of the patent, it was held that the plaintiff's idea only amounted to a more thorough application of something in use before, and his bill was dismissed, and it was also held that a public official cannot patent the results of an official investigation. Patterson v. Gas-Light & Coke Co., L. R. 2 Ch. D. 812; L. R. 3 App. Cases H. L. 239; 30 Gas J. 948. 5. Injunction. Notice. Where the defendants who had the exclusive right to a patent for an improvement in the manufacture of gas, for a State, notified, by letter, one using machinery of the same kind, under a permit from the plaintiff, that they alone had authority to give permits to use such machinery under the patent, and that application must be made to them, on a petition for an injunction it was held that this action was not sufficient to authorize an injunction, it not appearing that the defendants asserted a hostile claim to plaintiff's patent. Wren v. Cosmopolitan Gas-Works Co., 5 N. Y. Supreme Ct. (T. & C.) 686; s. c. 9 N. Y. Supreme Ct. (2 Hun) 666. PENALTIES. See STATUTES, 1, 10; SUPPLY OF GAS, 23. PHILADELPHIA GAS TRUSTEES. See CONTRACT, 6, 7, 8; MUNICIPALITY, 2, 3; TAxation, 1. POOR RATES. See TAXATION, II. PRACTICE. See CONTRACT, 5; TAXATION, 8, 19; NEGLIGENCE, 50. PRESIDENT OF COMPANY, POWERS OF. See DIRECTOR, 2; MUNICIPALITY, 1; BONDS, 1, 2; STOCK OF GAS COMPANIES, 6, 7. PRICE OF GAS. See CHARTER, 3; CONTRACT, 3, 11, 17, 18; MUNICIPALITY, IV.; STATUTES, 11; SUPPLY OF GAS, 17. PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. See AGENCY. PROFITS. For Loss of, see CONTRACT, 20; DAMAGES, 1, 3. PUBLIC OR PRIVATE CORPORATION. "The manu 1. Gas Companies not Public Corporations. facture and sale of gas is a business which may be prosecuted or discontinued at the will of the party engaged in it. The relations between the maker and the consumer originate in the contract between them, and their respective rights and obligations are controlled entirely by the stipulations of such contract, and as (where no contract prohibits) the one may refuse to take the article at his pleasure, so may the other at his pleasure refuse to supply it. We discover no reason for subjecting the maker of gas to duties or liabilities beyond those to which the manufacturers and vendors of other commodities are subjected by the rules of law." Per CURIAM, in McCune v. Norwich City Gas Co., 30 Conn. 521. 2. Public Use. Eminent Domain. The conducting, by gaspipes, of illuminating gas for the purposes of sale, and to supply gas for lighting the streets, public parks, and dwellings of the city of Rochester by the plaintiffs, under a special charter authorizing them to take private property upon making compensation therefor, is "within the category of those public improvements to enable which to be carried out the legislature may confer upon the parties engaged in the enterprise the right to take private property necessary to effect the object upon making compensation therefor," and if any business can fairly be supposed to be a matter by which the public of a particular community may be benefited, then such business is a "public use" within the meaning of the Constitution of New York, and plaintiffs' charter was held to be constitutional. - Bloomfield & Rochester Natural Gas Co. v. Richardson, 63 Barb. 437. 3. Gas Companies not Public Corporations.—Eminent Domain. MILLER J. says: "There is nothing in the charter of the appellant (the gas company) which entitles it to exemption from the power of eminent domain as exercised under the statute in acquiring real estate. Its land is not held by virtue of any such right, nor is it required to serve any public use which confers upon it any especial privilege in this respect. It is a private manufacturing corporation which furnishes gas to individuals, and for the lighting of the public streets, on such terms as are agreed upon. This of itself does not make it a public corporation. It is not public merely because it is of a public character." New York Central, &c. R. R. Co. v. Metropolitan Gas-Light Co., 63 N. Y. 326; s. c. 12 Supreme, 201. 4. Not Public Corporation. In an action brought to recover the amount of a tax assessed upon a gas-light company, BIGELOW C. J. says: "The ground of this contention is, that the defendants are a quasi public corporation, and come within the principle on which turnpike, railroad, canal, and other like corporations, established for the convenience and accommodation of the public, are held to be exempt from ordinary taxation in the cities or towns where they own property, which is held and used by them for purposes connected with or essential to the due exercise of their corporate rights and duties. But we fail to see PUBLIC NUISANCE; QUO WARRANTO, WRIT OF. 149 that the defendants can be properly regarded as a corporation of this character. No public duty is imposed upon them, nor are they charged with any public trust. They are authorized to make and distribute gas for their own profit and gain only. They are not bound to sell and dispose of it to any one, either for public or private use or consumption. It is entirely at their own option whether they will exercise their corporate rights and privileges at all; and if they undertake to manufacture and dispose of gas, the extent to which they shall carry on the business is left to their own election. Nor is any power conferred upon them to take private property, not previously appropriated to a public use, for the purpose of exercising and enjoying their franchise." Commonwealth v. Lowell Gas-Light Co., 12 Allen, 77. See RECEIVER. PUBLIC NUISANCE. See NUISANCE. QUO WARRANTO, WRIT OF. 1. Use of Streets by Gas Companies. Local Easement. A petition for leave to file an information in the nature of a quo warranto to deprive a gas company of the franchise of laying its gas-pipes and distributing gas through the streets of Detroit, on the ground that the company had violated the terms of an agreement made with the city of Detroit, imposing conditions against making combinations with other companies and in other respects, was denied, and it was held that the statute allowed such information only for the punishment of corporations for the violation of State law and policy, and that the right to lay gaspipes is not a State franchise, but a local easement, and the violation of such right does not concern the State. People ex rel. Maybury v. Mutual Gas-Light Co. of Detroit, 38 Mich. 154 (1878). 2. Against Corporation. - Practice. An information in the nature of a quo warranto against a gas company in its cor |