EQUITY, 5.
FORFEITURE, 2 to 5.
PARTY, 2, 6.
PATENTS, 37, 41.

INTEREST.

1. On a libel for the adjustment of sal-
vage, filed by the former owners of
the cargo of a whaling vessel, which
cargo, on the wrecking of the vessel
at Behring's Straits, had been at-
tempted to be sold by her master to
the claimants, who brought it to
New York and in whose possession it
continued, this Court, in awarding to
the libellants the proceeds of the sale
of the cargo by the claimants, after
deducting salvage and freight, also
allowed to them interest, from the
date of such sale, on the amount
awarded to them. The Richmond, 84

577

a bill was filed by the licensor against
the licensee, praying for a decree
that the covenants should be per-
formed, and for an injunction to pre-
vent the use of the patent, under the
license, until the covenants should be
performed, and the citizenship of
the parties did not give to the Court
jurisdiction of the suit: Held, that
the subject-matter did not give the
Court jurisdiction; that the suit was
not one to prevent the violation of
any right of the licensor, secured by
any law of the United States, within
section 17 of the Patent Act of July
4th, 1836, (5 U. S. Stat. at Large,
124,) but was one to prevent the vio-
lation of the rights secured by the
covenants; and that the Court had
no jurisdiction of the case.
year v. Union India Rubber Co., 63
Good-

PARTY, 1.
PATENTS, 26, 27,
PRACTICE, 8, 9.
STEAMBOAT, 2, 3.

LIEN.

1. Where the owner of a steamboat
agreed to pay by instalments for a
boiler to be built for the vessel, the
last instalment to be paid by his giv-
ing a note at three months from the
completion of the boiler, but he did
not give the note: Held, that, under
the lien law of New York, (2 R. S.,
493, §§ 1, 2,) the lien of the builder
on the vessel for the amount of such
last instalment was not displaced by
the agreement as to the note.
Highlander,

The

55

JURY.

See EVIDENCE, 4.

PATENTS, 14, 32 to 34.

JUSTICE OF THE PEACE.

See JURISDICTION, 6 to 8.

L.

LIBEL.

See PLEADING, 1 to 3.

LICENSE.

See JURISDICTION, 2.

LOAN.

See PARTNER, 2, 3.

M.

MAINTENANCE.

See CHAMPERTY.

MANIFEST.

See CARRIER, 1.

FORFEITURE, 6 to 9.

MASTER.

See CARRIER, 1.

CHARTER-PARTY. 1 to 3.
COLLISION, 7 to 11, 17.
FORFEITURE, 6 to 9.
INTEREST.

authorities of the City of New York
was required to the construction of
the road within the city, and the Act
authorized those authorities
to reg-
ulate the time and manner of using
the same." The authorities consented
to the construction of the road within
the city, and, at the same time, the
Company covenanted that the author-
ities should retain the "the right of
regulating the description of power
to be used" in the propulsion of cars
within the limits of the city: Held,
that the condition so annexed to
such consent was authorized by said
Act. New York and New Haven
R. R. Co. v. Mayor, &c., of New
York,
193

2. An unrestricted power to make a
grant or concession enables the party
to make it upon conditions. id.

3, Held, also, that the authorities had
the right to forbid the running of lo-
comotive engines, by the Company,
on their road, within the city, at any
time when, in their judgment, the
interests of the public demanded it.

4.

id.

The Act of the Legislature of New
York,passed March 29th, 1848, (Sess.
Laws of 1848, chap. 143,) did not con-
fer upon the New York and New Ha-
ven Railroad Company any greater
privileges, in respect to the running
of locomotive engines, within the
city of New York, upon the tracks
of the New York and Harlem Rail-
road Company, than had been, or
might be, conferred on the latter
Company, and the city authorities
have the right to prevent the run-
ning of such engines, within the city,
by the former Company, on the
tracks of the latter Company.

id.

6.

2. If a conveyance of property be made
to a partnership, composed of two
persons, as security for a usurious
loan of money made by one of the
partners, without the knowledge of
the other, such loan being made in
the State of New York, and such
loan and conveyance being unlawful
and void by the laws of the State,
the loan and conveyance cannot be
regarded as within the proper scope
and business of the partnership, so
as to make the ignorant partner lia-7.
ble, in an action of tort, for the vio
lation of law by his copartner.

id.

id.

A Circuit Court of the United States
will always dispense with a merely
formal party, where he is beyond the
reach of process; and, where a per-
son is beyond the reach of process, it
will dismiss a bill, on the ground of
its inability to proceed, only when it
discovers that the presence of the
person is indispensable, and that no
relief can be given which does not
necessarily involve his rights. id.

Where persons are acting in concert
in infringing a patent, although they
act merely as employees of a corpo-

5. The trust declared by the law is im-
plied from the existence of the facts
which create the trust.
id
6. Under the Patent Act of July 4th,
1836, (5 U. S. Stat. at Large, 117,) a
patent cannot be avoided by the fact
that the invention patented was
known and used in a foreign country
before its discovery by the patentee,
provided the patentee, at the time of
making his application for a patent,
believed himself to be the first in-
ventor of the thing patented. Barth-
olomew v. Sawyer,

347

7. No description, in any printed pub-.
lication, of the thing patented, can
avoid a patent, unless such descrip-
tion was prior, in point of time, to
the invention of the patentee. It is
not enough that the description in
the printed publication should have
been prior to the application for the
patent.
id.

8.

C. filed in the Patent Office a caveat
under § 12 of the Patent Act of July
4th, 1836,) 5 U. S. Stat. at Large, 121.)
Three months afterwards M. filed a
caveat for the same invention. Seven
months after that C. applied for a
patent for the invention, which was
granted two months after his applica-
tion. Fifteen months after the grant-
ing of the patent to C., a patent was
granted to M. for the same invention.
No notice was given by the Commis-
sioner of Patents to M., of the appli-
cation of C. In a suit brought by C.,
for the infringement of his patent,
against parties holding under the
patent to M.: Held, that if M. in
fact first discovered the invention,
and if, when C. applied for his patent,
M. was using reasonable diligence in
adapting and perfecting his invention,