The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-03-29

NEW I
the steamboats Kate ana Des Moines. This Court
afrms the decree OF the Circuit Court holding that
both vessels were at fault. and ordering the dam
ages TO be apportioned between tnem. Mr.. justice
DAVIS delvered the opinion.
No. 12z Miller vs. Watkins and the Patent Nut
and Bolt Company.-Error to the Circuit Court OF
Louisiana. TINS was an action to recover on an
alleged contract with Watkins, made tor the Patent
Company, by which 1t was agreed the latter should
manufacture cotton iron ties under Buffers patent
and divide the profits after payment oil expenses.
Inc defence was that no contract existed; that
draft or a proposed contract was made, but not
signed, and that tue Agreement was never CON-
pleted Under the instructions OF the the Court the
verdict Was Tor the COMPANY, and the judgments
ing VI the Court In excluding letters from the de.
endanls 10 error tending to show their motives In
negotlaiing with Butler. Mr.. Justice Strong de-
hvered the opinion.
No. $50. Union Mutual Lite Insurance Company,
OF Maine, VS.. Wklnson-Error to the. Circuit Court
for lowa.-Ths was o suit on policy OF insurance
taken by WILKINSON q resident OF Iowa, on the life
OF his wife. The defence was that the wife hal In
clplent consumption when the insurance was OBJ
tanned, which fact was lraudulentiy suppressed,
and tnat she mad been years before seriously injured
by falling rom tree WHICH aos was also TaaaS
nitted to the Jury, and they found for the insured
IL both instances. ine case was brought here Oh
writ OF error 10 the judgment ana TINS Court
atirms the judgment finding NO error In the ruling
OF the Court below Mr.. Justice Miller delivered
the opinion.
No. ia stoughton VS.. Gerson-Appeal from the
Circuit Court for Maryland.-This was proceeding
10 OBTAIN q sale OF two steamboats,, one Of which
was purchased by the intestate Of Stoughton OF
Gerson. mortgage beng given on the one pur-
chased. and anoLher owned by the intestate 10
to secure q balance OF purchase money. Inc de-
fence ialse representations by the broker
making the sale OF the vessel In stating that she
did not draw more than three aud q halr feet OF
water. The Court below found that the allegations
OF the defence were not proven and the judgment
mes Mr. asce f Field aeered the opo
No. 365. Monger vs.. Shlrley-Appea from the
Circuit Court for East Tennessee. dis
missed.
No. 7. Original. Exparse McNeil-Petition for
Eastern district OF New York.-Application denied
and petition dismissed.
No. ls. United States vs.. Sllvey-Appea from the
Court OF Cialms.- Affirmed BY a divided Court.
,n, @ c one % S i nw rom
South Carolina, under the Enforcement act Of 1870.
the Court have directed writs OF habeas corpus and
certtoralt to issue, to bring up the commitment Tor
examination here. and the VIRUS are returnable on
the 9Th proxlmo and to be heard on the 18TH
Important Patent suit--A Manufacturer or
Locomotive and Car Wheels Aleaed TO
Have Obtained Patent Privileges by Fraud
The Reading Railroad Company Contrasting
the Power of the state Of Pennsylvania to
Tax for Goods Transported Beyond tho
State Limits.
WASHINGTON, March %, 1872.
No. LAT. Mowry vs.. whitney-Appeal from the
Circuit Court for the Eastern District Of Pennsylva-
niaThe bill in this filed to obtain an inqui
sion against Whitney to restrain proceeding prose-
cuted in the Circuit Court for OHIO against Mowry
for an alleged infringement Of patent granted to
Whitney, in 1885, for "process for prolon ging the
time OF cooling in connection with anneallng cast
iron ra llr0ad car wheesn The bill recites that the
extension of Whltneys patent, granted In 1852,
is void, because procured by means OF fraud
and deceit practised on the Commissioners OF
Patents IN respect TO the profits of tile patentee
defence to the suit In ONO, because that case has
been decided against the pialnJlH IN this, and Is
before commissioner for an account; and that It
was not used on the trial. because 1t was not known
until the trial that such fraud was used IN pro.
curing the extension, having been ascertained from
The Court held on demurrer to the bill that It
could not interfere with the OHIO proceeding with
usurping the appellate jurisdiction OF this Court
and coilaterally multiplying what IT IS pro.
niblted from even reversing, aud the petition
wae sSe Circuit Court Of haa
power to direct or control the proceedings OF tne
Circuit Court Tor Ohio It ana have jurisdiction over
enjOn anu restrain him from prosecuting suit In
the other COURT where, as shown Dy the bill IN this
case the suit which ne was sought to be enOined
from prosecuting was founded on an instrument
irauduentiy procured, and the prosecution OF the
science. A. G. Thurman Tor appellant; Henry Bald
win, Jr., for the appellee
No. 155. Reading Railroad Company vs. The
State OF Pennsylvania, aud 1ea Same, VS.. Same
Error to the Supreme Court OF PennsylvanIa.-m
February, 1856. the Legislature OF Pennsylvania
passed an act which provided that In addition to
the taxes then provided for by law every railroad,
canal and transportation company Incorporated
under the laws OF the State. and not liable to the
tax upon incomes under existing laws, shall pay TO
the state tax OF three ourrhs Of per cent upon
the gross receipts OF the company the tax to De paid
semi-annnaly before tine 1st day OF July and Janu.
AIRY, commencing on the LIST day OF July, 1868; and
for the purpose OF ascertainlng the amount OF the
same 1t was made the duty OF the Treasurer 10
transmit to the Auditor General at the oates fixed,
statement, under oath or Affirmation, or the
period Of six months; and II there was refusal or
failure for period OF thirty days after the tax became
due to make retara OF to pay the tax an addition OF
company paid the tax on that portion OF their gross
receipts derived entirely from transportation Of
goods 10 be delivered within the State, but refused
transportation intended to 60 without the State.
From o judgment Tor the latter amount the writ Of
error Is taken. and the plaintiffs In error contend
that that portion Of the gross receipts OF corpora
Of its transportation within the state This tax,
charged equally on all the gross receipts derived
from every source, constitutes an unconstitutional
receipts from inter Estate trafllc.
No. 15e presents precisely the same question, ex.
cept that the tax is upon the tonnage Of the road
which was transported beyond the borders of the
state and the familiar argument is therefore made
that far as the tax Is imposed on transportation
from into the State 1t conflicts with the clause In
the constitution which gives to Congress the power
to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among
the several States and with the Indian tribes. on
the part Of the State 1t Ii insisted that II it Is regu
lation OF commerce to impose such q tax the State
has right under the clause or the constitution
quoted TO make sucn regulation, Congress not
and II. A. Lamoerton for plaintiffs; s. w. smith and
f. Carroll Brewster Tor defendants.
NJ UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT