The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1848-09-28

8, l84S.
individually sDa III. ALLOWS cut Z, bs Jo ut
oh cares BESIDES, . judgment upon one ooilaters
Instrument does not work an .xtinsuishmsnt Of auo
thes gwen for the rsmo debt or duty, any than
WORDS an cxtinguisbm- Ut Of the principal drbt-ths
remedies upon the different instrsmsnts therefore
ment N tho plea that tho plaintiff sought TO re-
cover the ssms identical sum Of moneJ In this suit
upon the idpnriosi breaches assigned. g.. l. en-
tireiy cOnsiStsDt with the fsst that tina one se.
surity Wss oolistev.i with sAs other. aud do,
not DecessAfly imyart e1stuguishmsnt; tbs
peafsrs should havv gone farther end have sverrsd
tbat the sivvr and acesp,eS In satfsotion Of
me other or tst satisfaction had sOiowod the nrst
james Wilson We .axss~n Packard This was an so-
ton ON the case Or the sliey.d Infringement OF
ship csbooses lTteof August 1898. The improvement
o. claimed consisted IN securing the nre-plstts Of the
use Of soap stone, FIRE brick, olay 10 faste ned to
the inside Of the Gre PLATES in . particular man
mad. for . patent Ia the .srIy part tp Of The year
ls4o but the ssui1g was delayed on s5count
Of ohisv.ions a. the ',ass to. tho claims ana spe.
oihcatioas, till August lB43 when itywss granted It
appeared that the imprsvsment had been put sale
~ early the year 1889! AMI had been continued on
granting Of tho patent. Thts Of facts, It WAS
claimed by the defendant made dedication Of rhe
Improvement to the publio and rendered the patent
void. On the part of the plaintiffs insisted that
the patent valid nding the above facts
under the construction II the 7h section of the sot Of
1889, 70; u 8 H. 1854 That section is'as folows-
shat every person. shall pur-
chased newly n:sn..d .ssne
tor dicOysIer shall y hs right
n s.
reason Of such purpose sale prior to the application fora
public or that purchase sale prior use has
been Tor more than two prior to such Application for
patent
was claimed that the purchase or construction re-
ferred to in the fore part of this section pur
chase construction from the inventor himself, or
from title derived from under the INVENTOR lad
therefore the section implicitly least authorizes
to put his invention SALE and to se publicly prior
to the time OF making application for his PATENT and
that the purchased in the latter part refer to the
of purchases provided for and authorized in the
fore part Of the secOn tales be made at time
within the two years prescribed prior to the making
Of such sppcstion-sad that the risk of the inventor
in putting his invention sale and pubcky seeing
within the two before he makes application 10 the
ton of bs 70 tbs
such inference prsdiesbe the fact OF putting
the invention sale On the part Of the defendant
1t was claimed that this construction makes the
fsrepsrt of the section o work Of supererogAton
statute provision would be tho right
purchaser from the inventor himself in the Of
the machine purchased constructed under him. The
purchase itself would be scomp'ete protection notwth
standing q patent was subsequently granted-lt was
further claimed the true construction Of the section
that refers to purchase Of machines
under title derived from other than she nven
and that while the section provides for the security Of
rights thus derived and and sbouc thus incur
CURED and performed in good sith against the opera
ton ard effect Of subsequent patent to the aud
orgins invention at the same time guards againsths
legal effect of any acquescence or implied assent
the part Of the inventor TO such prior public Of his
invention for period Of two years unless evidence is
produced of intent to abandon that before this
act "a the law stood an inventor looking and
guessing in the public of his invention before ap
pcation for his patent though such wrongful
would mlQ
render his patent invalid and that the object Of the
section was protect the purchaser or
constructor OF the machine prior to the for
patent In tbs use of the particular machine
chimes after it granted and second at the
time to guard the rights of the nventor against the
legal effect and operation Of any such
public Of his Invention The Judges opposed
In opinion and a. the point Of great practical
Importance, certified it TO the Supreme Court OF the
! United States for decision.
Dawes and Carey ads. y ~ CGssH was .
four counts. against the defendants aoceptors
Of bill Of exchange; second, the common money
counts; third and fourth, upon promises to accept
! The defe ndants were commission merchants in the
city of New York and had given Q general letter of
credit agent procure me is of western
! produce TO their house and made advances on the
same withiE certain limits and as mode of making
advances the house promised in said letters to honor
any drafts drawn against such shpmen the owner
and shipper on the property being put good condi
ton for Shipment The draft in question drawn
in pursuance of the authority above given and nego.
tisted to the plaintiff, who took it for value, the
faith of said letter of credit and commercial standing
cept The Court held that the plaintiff d not re-
against the defe ndants acceptor CT the BILL
and that there sufficient prvity be the
holder who had taken the paper and advanced his
money the faith Of the letters of credit to sustain
the action In his own name The Court further held
that the facts of endorseme nts appearing the BILL
subsequent to the endorsement by the payer to the
plaintiff whether for the purpose OF tran snissou and
collection for value did not prevent recovery in
the plaintiffs name; inasmuch as It appeared also that
he was the holder and owner Of the at the time
| ha WI .nhDrl Mt nnfa
sentia to vest the legal interest in him The Court
further held that the protest of the BILL in due FORM
for that purpose rebutt.d any inference of
partial acceptance that purported to have been made
on that day by the defendants and which was sought
to be derived solely from the fact of partial accept
tion for new trial denied.
Charles .4nderson Executor of Phelps &c ads. the
United States. This action of debt bond,
made by the testator and Jesse Hoyt jointly and
seyeraly in the penal of 5000 0OO and after re-
citing that the said Jesse Hoyt had been appointed
collector Of the port of New York and had given
bond the 22d of March 1885, with suretes for the
faithful discharge of HIS duties and also another bond
on the Both Of November, 1888, for the like faithful
discharge of his duties and further recting that it
that the said Mt Hoyt should give additional security
for the faithful performance Of his trust. Said bond
wss conditional that II the SAID Jesse truly. truly ana
tnue truly and faithfully to execute and discharge
all the duties of the sad Office. then the said ebss
ton to be void otherwise to remain In full force and
virtue Several breaches assigned the defe ndsnts
demurred aud plaintiff joined in demu rer The ques
ton upon the demurrer is whether not Phelps the
tsator by entering into the bond with the sccompa
nyipg rectss became absolutely bound for any default
of Hoyt in the disc barge of his duties as collector or
only contingently In the event OF the failure nabi
lily surertes In the previous bond to satisfy and
discharge the The Court held that the said tes
tator became absolutely bound that the recital that
twas deemed expedent to exact additional security,
did not necessarily, nor by any fair inference, import
conditional or contineent security that the condition
was in the terms prescribed by the act of
Congress, and found in all the official bonds of the
collector that the recital intended to show that
Phelps not the sole security Of Hoyt but that he
had become such in addition to the sursties already
| given the Goth of March and 30th Of November
previous that additional security might be absolute
well conditional, dope nding upon the terms of
he nd at In Ina alb.