ticular machine, and not being neces-
sarily connected together in use, is
not bad for multifariousness, on de-
murrer, where it appears that the
machine sued contains all the im-
provements. Nourse v. Allen, 376

5. A deduction of title to the patents
being set forth in the bill, with an
averment that the title to them was
vested in the plaintiffs: Held, that
the latter averment would have been
sufficient, and that the deduction of
title was unnecessary.
id.

6. A declaration on a promissory note,
in a suit in this Court, drawn in the
form of a complaint under the New
York Code of Procedure, is bad, on
general demurrer. Brownson
Wallace,

V.

465

7. A claim of damages is necessary as
a matter of substance, in a declara-
tion in an action of assumpsit, and a
demand of judgment for the amount
of the note proceeded on, and inter-
est, in the form used in complaints
under the New York Code, is not such
a claim of damages.
id.

See PRACTICE, 1, 2.

POST OFFICE.

1. Under the facts of this case, the
Government of the United States had
no right to withhold from a party
who had contracted with it to per-
form a mail service by sea, a portion
of the pay provided for by the con-
tract. United States v. Collins, 142

2. Under the Act of June 27th, 1848,
(9 U. S. Stat. at Large, 241,) the
power of the Postmaster General to
impose a fine on the contractor for
the transmission of mails to and from
foreign countries, for any unreason-
able or unnecessary delay in the
departure of the mails, or in the per-
formance of the trips, is limited to
the cases and for the causes specified
in the Act.
id.

3. A recommendation made by the
Postmaster General to the Secretary

6. Where, on a trial, in an action at
law, a verdict was given for the plain-
tiff, subject to the opinion of the
Court on a case to be made, and a
case was then made containing the
questions of law, and a reservation to
either party, of the right, after the
decision of the Court on the case, to
turn the case into a bill of exceptions,
and a motion for a new trial was then
denied, and judgment entered for the
plaintiff, and the defendant then sued
out a writ of error to the Supreme
Court, but through inadvertence, the
case was annexed to the record
without changing it into the form of
a bill of exceptions, and neither party
observed the defect, and the case was
argued in the Supreme Court on its
merits, but that Court noticed the
defect and affirmed the judgment
below, because there was no bill of
exceptions and no error on the face of
the record, this Court afterwards al-
lowed the defendant to turn the case
into a bill of exceptions, on payment
of the costs in the Supreme Court.
Williamson v. Suydam,

323

7. On the hearing, on a libel in per-
sonam, the District Court heard suffi-
cient evidence to show that the prin-
cipal question was as to the amount
due by the respondent, as owner of a
vessel, to the libellant, as its master,
for wages, and then, instead of taking
further testimony in open Court re-
ferred it to a Commissioner to take
proofs as to the nature, extent, and
value of the service, and as to credits
for payments: Held, that the prac-
tice was proper, as not prejudicing
the rights of the respondent, and
saving the time of the Court. Shaw
v. Collyer,
370

8. Where an action at law for the in-
fringement of letters patent is
brought in the name of the holder of
the legal title to the patent, but for

PURCHASER.

See JURISDICTION, 6 to 9.

Ꭱ

RAIL ROAD.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1 to 9.
NEW YORK CITY.

REAL ESTATE.

1. A tenant for life of real estate, is
bound, as between himself and the
owner of the reversion, to pay the
taxes on the real estate; and, if the
tenant for life neglects to pay them,
and, upon the sale of the real estate
for their non-payment, obtains a con-
veyance of it to himself, he will not,
after the determination of his life es-
tate, be allowed to claim thereby a
title in fee against the reversioner,
and thus take advantage of his own
wrong. Patrick v. Sherwood,

112

and trustee, in trust, to sell and con-
vey it, and, having converted it into
money, to distribute and divide the
proceeds among certain benevolent
institutions enumerated, but the will
did not empower the executor to re-
ceive the rents and profits of the real
estate: Held, that, under the 56th
section of the article, "Of Uses and
Trusts," in the Revised Statutes of
New York, (1 R. S., 729,) the execu
tor took no estate in the land, but it
descended to the heirs at law of the
testator, subject to the execution of
the power in trust. Pennoyer v.
Sheldon,

316

8. Under the will in this case, the fee
in the land would, at common law,
have passed to the executor; but the
statute has changed the law. id.

See ADMIRALTY, 11.
CORPORATION, 7, 8.

RECIPROCITY TREATY.

See FORFEITURE, 9.

REFERENCE.

See INJUNCTION, 26, 27.

REMISSION.

See FORFEITURE, 10 to 12.

REMOVAL.

1. Where a defendant, sued in a State.
Court, applied to this Court by peti-
tion, praying for the removal of the
suit to this Court, under the 3d sec-
tion of the Act of March 2d, 1833,

(4 U. S. Stat. at Large, 633,) on the
ground that the suit was for acts
done by him under the revenue
laws of the United States, and ob-
tained a certiorari from this Court to
the State Court, to certify the pro-
ceedings on file in that Court, and
the cleerk of the State Court re-
turned that there were no proceed-
ings on file in his office in the suit,
and the defendant's attorney then
entered a ruie in this Court for the
plaintiff to declare in twenty days,
and notice of the rule was served on
the plain iff's attorneys, who admit-
ted service of it, but failed to de-
clare, and a judgment as in case of
nonsuit was then entered against the
plaintiff: Held, that such judgment
was regular. Abranches v. Schell,