The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1847-12-06
Law Intelligence.


UNITED STATES CIncUIr CoURr, Dec Present the
Circuit and District Judges Decisions Meigs
&c ,-vs Sun Mutual In.nronce Co Joseph r. Taber,
Insurnncs Co.-Judge Nelson stated, the Court dis.
agreed as regarded their decision the motion for
the trial and the defendants would have benefit
them The verdots were taken subject to adjustment
Judgment Is effected they can go before Judge Belts and
settle the amount Motion for new trial denied.
Thomas Prcsser aga INST LeUi and Moses Cook This
vas motion IN patent case for new trial made by
was bad on its face
Judge NELsoN-we think the patent on the face of IL
good and that the invention for manufacturer
and therefore, within the provisions OF the patent
Another objection taken at the trial and renewed
hitting !.
OF priority The patenee told Of the discovery he had
made to the witness and it that evidence
was incompetent Wethink that evidence only
simple fact showing that he at Q pa ticular time
master Of the invention which Is only evidence that
turns out that he the inventor of 1t ia therefore
proof OF the time the discovery made only 1t
peared In the course Of the trial that the paentee had
never manufactured Of the article In this country
and, also, that ho had never manufactured In any
country but that he went into the market
the article under the patent procured
BY his brother in England and purchased 1t there aud
imported here and upon this state Of the case It 10
objected that the patent does not protect the article In
the hands Of the paentee In this country that the claim
In eject s, claim for monopoly Of importation In the
sale Of the article from abroad In this country which
the English patented procured the article to be manu-
Ectussd In England BY one particular house. and that
plaintiff has furnished New York and other cities in the
United States with It, and defendant has procured the
article In the way by importing 1t into this coun
Try Now the question is has the plaintiff right to 60
into the market and bring the article into this country
and exclude all others from dealing In 1t We think
has not that right secured to him by the patent and on
that ground, we grant new trial. costs to abide the
Isinidad Quesadi ads. Stephen Arnold It, al This
action was brought on contract for the sale Of ship,
fOnnh od ~upttN
tober 1896 entered into between the parties (the de-
PENDANT acting Tor and on behalf Of the Of
sp, sns plaintiffs 'sTssd to sell to the said
tackle &c she then lay in tho harbor of
for and In consideration Of the sum Of $40 0o0 to be
binding himself and his heirs, &C. in the penal Of
$4,000 TO perform said agreement The action is brought
by the Arnolds this agreement recover the pur-
chase money. The defendant demurs on the ground
that the contract was executed by defendant agent
Of the spanish government and that he s therefore,
not personally liable for the purchase money but Is
clearly settled by the Supreme Court and the Court of
Errors that Ms between individuals the agent In order
mont, must execute 1t in the name Of his principal
not the principal not bound is the gent bound
personally but If he signs and seals with his
and SEAL he Is bound personally, and the principal 10
mott but is said this is taken out this rule that
defendant public agent and that although he had
signed it with his and seal yet nssmuch It
that executed as an agent for his govern
ment It takes him out Of this rule Dexter Hodges,
reported In Cranch" have looked into tho several
think this rule is limited to the time while acting in
their public capacity and this defendant does not pro-
ess to be govern officer but states himself to be
simply agent of the general government purchase
this article and that he had authority from his govern
ment to make the purchase; that he was merely ap-
pointed agent for this particular purpose and
the contract in his and binds himself and his
heirs 1t to therefore, that the demurrer
well taken. Judgment for plaintiffs on demurrer.
Hogg and Dela,nater ads Emrson There is a pro-
vision in the act Of 1885 authorizing the Judge Of he
Circuit Court In his discretion allow writ Of error
notwithstanding the recovery fell shorty to review the
care, by the Court above am reluctant to allow writ
OF but there perhaps questions in the
which ought to be- reviewed by the supreme Court
an, therefore, equally reluctant to refuse q review
counsel express desire that they should be reviewed
therefore, inclined to allow the writ of error in
qualified manner, but am inclined TO restrict the par
ties to certain questions and that the should be
submitted on written arguments before the first Of
February next, and also, that the plaintiff In error
should give security for costs.
Executors of Eckjord ads United Sioies.-Wilscn
Packer these two cares are reserved for further
consideration.
Lydia a. Justice Israel s. Tacker.-In this case,
which tried on Wednesday last before Judge pgra-
ham, after the defendants counsel bad finished the
opening OF the Defendants case paintif counsel stood
up ana said that every allegation made by defendants
counsel in respect to the plaintiff and her family was
slse and unfounded In the hurry OF drawing up the
report the reporter omitted to state this fact but added
at the bottom OF the report the words this s the &C.
fendants version Of the case"
CouRr OF GENERAL SEssrors-Tke December term OF
this court commences at III o'clock. this forenoon
By the poeness Of MT Deputy Keeper LlnSon o, ,Ss
the Keeper to the Court of Sessions Tor the
December term, who now In prison awaiting their
trial IN Murder, burglary, grand larceny, Ia RIOT
person, bigsmy, Q witnesses, sosndonmsn'
sodomy ssssmpt ~ rape mlse vresps~' "
Total o.