The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1866-12-24

-
aat the Assisnse 81 the whsie interest," ~
thosans Act s-Mandanus - the Cs@nis-
sgonefs 81 Paeents-Power or the Cfrcus
Oears u rhls District % Issue the Wrss.
D. p. Holloway. Court v PGte~h, PlaistiT IN nvov,
ASdyno wAitdy Tho defendant in v the assg-
nss Of sectional interest In patent granted TO Jona
than Hsinss the 9Th Of September 1885, for an i'm
provsmsut In moving machines He holds BY virtue Of
several assignments, al the territory embraced In the
patent except the State Of Ohio and the northern half
Of tho State Of Isois and in such territory he Is the
assignee Of ell the rights Of the patentse.
In Nay lsea, he applied 70 The Commissioner Of ~
section o. s Il hs
Of the State Of Ohio and Of the northern half Of Illinois
~ sns y.
applicant B) not being the assignee Of the whole ne
rss In the patent vas not entitled 70 the reissue ssksd
for
Thereupon upon application made the Supreme Court
of the District OF Columbia granted peremptory man.
Of Pstsnia refer such application the proper
aminer otherwise examine cause the same 70 b.
sxamnsd according 70 law"
writ Of error brought by the Commissioner and the Inn
poant question arising In the s whether the THU
patoniee and his assigns in certain cases 70 reissue
patent applies TO the assignee OF sectional Interest
only Similar questions constantly arise IN hs p.ss s
statute snail receive authoritative construction. Il 70
conceded that the extension OF the right Of Reissue IL =
the OF the whole Interest," that their
rights may be impaired and lost for the want OF
OF the sainte are nrst that may lead 10 many diff
ferent patents for the invention the paienfce
should grant sectional interests In H. and second, that
reissue Thus, In Monatt Carr Il Black, 273l
this court held that IA surrender Of the tent
the patent il L. legal canseaion Of the patent ana
hence he foundation for right after tue
surrender thai could an act OF Congress which had been
4 A. h. Had hV UnA
how can sui, be maintained upon !. BY another who
has joined 10 the rsissuey Or, u the sectional as
sance does not happen % possess the patent how can
In the third place the omssion in the thirteenth
ton OF the act 10 mention the grantee OF sectional ~
ieresfs, docs IN other sections In connection with
the requirement Of surrender Of tho patent would
seem to Imply that i was not me Intention o. ne scs
To extend s provisions beyond the ps'enes and the -
Tho plaintiff 10 error, therefore, makes two points
that the Commissioner Of Patents decided correctly that
The defendant In entitled 10 rcIssue Of
the patent; that his decision erroneous manda-
mus does NOT is 70 correct H. The tommsssSoner had
already done what the writ commanded him 10 Do Any
further action such sending Tho examiner,
would have been usese-s and absurd
The defendant In error contends that there must be
power IN issoe this W.. ia case ike the present
IL s based on the fundamental rrDspie that there should
be remedy 10 enfctce every right " there we're no
means " compelinx ,s pubic servasts 10 obey she
public will declared in The laws The people YOU'D DO
slaves their servants aud arbitrary decisions
would prey, over law and @s, s no~ss's ,ss
mus in the District OF Columbia where all the de-
partments Of the general government have their snces
and where the rights Of the people are 81 hsbo 10 IN
fringemonL And this court In KendxlIs cAss az
Peters h24 decided that " the power 20 issus mana
mus In q like tho present exists anywhere u 10
vested N the Circuit Court District or Columbia
that being tho highest court Of original Jurisdiction with
IN the District
commands tho Commissioner 10 do the act now required
Of him. and the commissioner ob,ec,s, az has been seen
asserting that the legal question involved preliminary
de(ernuAbe hy him alone. without aDDGal.
fusng pot the the nlss Of the Patent Once
In sach form that DIS rtfus. 10 grant the rs,sans wond
give the applicant appeal " Juscs Of the supreme
Court Of The Disrio Of Columbia.
The object Of applying for tho writ thst tho Com
missioner m ght b. compelled 70 Examine" this case.
before tho examination can be made the case must DO
duly flied; and then " tho Commissioners refuses the
patent Tor any reason ne Injured party entitled 20 an
Of the Patent 0ce no Is subject TO the absoute will Of
the Commissioner which arbitrarily dcprives him Of the
right OF appeal.
The grantee Of an exclusive territorial interest In
patent has legal night 10 apply Tor reissue OF such
patent IL cannot be doubled that design Of
Congress in establishing the reissue To crraio
remedy for the of all defects In the original paisnt
arising from any canse except fraud and natural justice
demands that defect IN tho instrument Of grant
gwen by the public should be promptly corrected tbe
inventor having executed his part or the contract add
being therefore entitled 10 like execution on the pan az
the public II was with this view thai years before
the passage Of the reissue had IN force Chief JUS
tee Marshall decided Grant, =. al, w Raymond,
statutory provisions, OF natural right entitled 10
surrender detective patent and obtain new patent
with the corrections necessary 70 fully protect the IN
vepton.
Upon the authority Of this decision this Court should
give the reissue statute such an equitsbe construction
thai will harm0nze with the general intent and policy
o. patent system, ~ exempned In the whole body
AZ the pacnt law and In long course OF enlightened do
Hut tho shrtcru,h section Of tho Of 1890 which
rst established the refsue NJ now granted provides
and 2 esss o. D.. es ,ny ,sS,
shall hir executors administrators or gnecs"
This statute therefore, grants dneqn,vocsiy TO any a.
pasentee II had the intention Of Congress IN
this right 10 the asstgnee 81 the whole interest
alone, would have been very TO use words Of linz
tsiion have used the restrictive and de1sve mr.
,cle the'' ios,saa q M d'stneunve p'onoan 'any
before the word assignment
Eiieha foOte, Tor piaintn IN error, - FISHER, Tor
defendant 10 error
Prize The Cnse Of the Peterh0n-The Neccs-
cary Blsckade Of Maiausrss In the Block
adc Of Brswnsvihe-Enect Of the RebelIlou
Upos the status Of che Loyal Residents Of
she south -s<psliatis1 ~ ships Papers ~
an Evidence Against shc Neutrality 81 she
Voyage.
IN sssam0 PseAeS, ISpae. Jsrmaa, cza.~ass for
Owners Of vsssi and Corso; Samsel y R.dgsas ard
ceo,ss W. Ai~ond c1asmnnh for Part d Cargo Appel.
iows n TIE Unsfed safss Psisrhof, . British
bua and registered q six hundred and sixty
nine tons burthsn, captured prize Of the
18th 81 February lss3 the Atlantic Ocean. on the
Island Of "a Thomss by the United States steamer Van
derbi and being brought into the port Of Ss~ FORK
wss there hb4iied and subsequently condemned Her
documsnssd scyags. was nom London, where she was
laden, 10 the pors Of Matamosos, herico
Jarnan, the masser Of The vessel s.ervened for the
inssssss q bis principals the csns denying that the
steamer or cargo iawfu prizs In the test oath
he sssrts that tbs vessel and cargo ere owned oy Sec
sis subjects Of Great Britain but netbsr IN the claim
nor IN the test oath dos he assert shss abe Vas %
the cs,msss Rsdssas alleging himssIs 70 BE- 'a,e Of
Texas, and lately pelitca refugee from thai ststs,
ners rcoessy sojourping In Great Brssin inssrvsssd
In behalf Of himssf ovnsv, agent and consgnee Of
large portion Of The cargo, vaiusd q % nearly
thaa sun" He denied that v wm lawful pvss. and 10
the oash anssyts shas shs shove named porttoa
OF ibe cargo d,d bsionG, PRIOR 70 and o. the tine
of the seizure, ssd stl does belong 70 this dspo-
peps cvpsv, conSgnse assot be- - forth IN u
clam; bot he ava not sssst ether In The claim o. ths
test cash. that this portion a The cargo w0 owned by
neutrals, shsa vs. . lawful voyage 70 . neutral
port
and subject of Greet Britain, claimed a. owssr, sgsut
and conaguec portion Of ~ cargo valued - o. neatly