The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-04-16
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
Decisions.

WASHINGTON, April Is. 1874.
No. 265. Washington and Alexandra Steam
Packet Company vs.. Slckles.-Error to the supreme
Court OF the District OF Coumbla.-Thls was an
action by Sickes to recover Tor Gne use OF his cut
OF Tor the saving Of coal In operating steam en-.
gnes The judgment below was or the patentee.
and the company, bringing the case here lor
review, obtained reversal Tor errors, whici VIII
appear In the following statement of the substance
OF the opinion The statute OF imltations having
been pleaded, the Court say that While the right to
plead 1t is no more within the discretion oil the
Court than other pleas, when lie refusal OF the
court to permit the plea 10 be fled, is based on
the ailegatlon taat It IS not filed within
tice adopted III that Court, 1t is necessary
that the party, excepting to the refusal snail
incorporate tne rule IN MS bill OF exceptions, or
TINS Court will pre- ume that the Court below con-
strued correctly Its own rules. Sucn rules
dispensaole to the despatch OF business ana tue
derly administrator OF jus tce. anu 1t must ue pre-
sumed Ghut the Court below Is familiar with the
construction and course OF practice under them.
On the merits 1t Is said That tle luie oil damages
In actions at law ior In ringer ent o. the rights OF
patentees has long been established In this Court
to De the customary price Ut whoa The pateniee
has licensed the -se OF his invention where sal.
fclent number OF licenses or sal have been ade
10 establish q market value. Tue reason IOr TINS
rule still sJron2 where the use OF the patented
invention has been, with the consent OF tue pat.
en.ee. express or implied, without any rate OF
compensation nxeu by the parties. uu This case
the compensation was to be tne value OF three.
fourhs OF tho amount OF iuel saved.) Mr.. Justice
Miller delivered rne opinion.
No. 24S. Peete vs.. M0rgan-Arpeal from the Cir.
cult Court tor the Eastern district OF Texas.-ln
this case Morgan. citizen Of New YORK, running
two lines OF steamers between ports IN Louisiana
and ports IN Texas, obialned a perpetual injunc-
ton to restrain the appellant, health ocer o. Gal.
weston, from exactng 9. nun certain tonnage
duties laid upon his shipping to deiray the ex-
penses ol quarantine regulations The decree De-
low Is affirmed here, the Court holding IN substance
hat ,ttrea fa-
proper from to MAINTAIN the quarantine system OF
the State, the present tax Is outside the Jur.sulo
nase Mr. justice DAVIS dsiversa the oSnon ION
No. 252. United States vs.. Herron-Error to the
Circuit Court for the District OF Loulsana.-In this
case the government sued on the ofrlcial bond Of
one Collins, Heron being q surety. The defence
was discharge under the Bankrupt act. The
Court below sustained the plea, and the judgment
was accordingly. The judgment is here reversed,
the Court holding that discharge under toe
Bankrupt act does not bar debt due the United
States This conclusion is sustained by the uniform
construction OF similar legislation IN this country
and in England. Mr.. Justice CLIFFORD delivered the
opinion.
No. 247. United States vs.. Heirs OF Junerarlty-
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Louslana.-Thls
was the reversal of decree adjudgng parties rep
resented by the appelees entitled to certain land
in louisiana under spanish patent issued to one
Ramos, tne Court holding that the claim attempted
to be set up by The petitions IN the case cannot be
sustained. Mr.. Justice Hunt delivered the opinion.
No. 257. First National Bank OF Troy vs. Cooper
ct al.-Appeal from the Circuit Court for the North
ern district OF New York-The bill IN this case waa
filed by the bank, a creditor OF an insolvent cor
poration (the Troy wool!en Company, to review
decree OF the District Court confirming the re.
port OF a reeree and allowing claim OF Cooper,
Vail IL Co. lor S67, 0O0 The Circuit Court decided
that It could not this decree at the instance
of a creditor, and dismissed the bill. That decree
il atfirmed here, the Court holding that the bank
does not snow any equity sufficient 10 justify the
Court in granting the relief sought. Mr.. Justice
strong delivered the opinion.