The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1879-11-19
United States Supreme Court Decisions.
w AstIr,Sc.ro,< Nov IL lI-Sunrena Court do

Stdtes supreme Sourt Dtcf>iohss
wAsHINGroS, Nov. E.-supreme Court der
No. %. Charles w. Kirkland. plaintiff in
the supreme court OF errors of Litchfield
county, Connecticut The question presented
citizen of Connecticut. eau be rightfuliy taxed
by that State. under its law, upon certain
Chicago, and secured by deeds OF trust on real
estate located in that city. The supreme
court of errors of Connecticut held that the
assessments OF which the plaintiff in error
complained were in conformity to the State
laws. and that the law did not infringe upon
lower tribunal. and holds that the locality
not afiected @ by the fact that it is secured by
mortgage upon real estate In Illinois; (State
the debt DE has its situs at the creditors resi-
dence, and 1t is for the State to determine
whether or not 1t shall be taxed. The discre-
tion of the State in this pecs Is not, in the
opinion of this court subject TO supervision
or control by the Federal Government, in any
taxation violates no provision of the Federal
constitution. The judgment of the supreme
court of errors of Connecticut is affirmed with
No. 705-The United States, plaintiffs, VS..
G MS adolpn aao Ho Wi,eman on eert
| cate of division from the circuit court of the
United States for the Southern district OF New
division from the circuit court Of the
OF Ohio. These three cases are prose-
cutions for violations of what are known
| to 4sf7, revised statutes. The question upon
which The judges of the lower courts were
sress on Il the Subject or trade marks are founded
| on any rightful authority In the constitution
Of the Unite states II t was maln,ainea nsre
/ answer to this question that there are two
| clauses of the Fede al constitution which fur
| nish sufficient warrant for the legislation in
dispute. The first is the eighth clause of section
/ s. article l, which provides that Congress shall
gress Of science and the useful arts by secur-
| ing for q limited time to authors and inventors
and ns discoveries. With ii @ regard this point, the
court holds that the ordinary trade mark has
ery. Il is generally the outgrowth OF a consid-
sudden invention, and is often the result q
| classify trade mark with the writings o
authors Is open to objections equally strong.
as do also Inventions, while the trade mark II
generally nothing more than an adoption. o
tive symbol OF the person using it. 1t does MOI
depend upon the novelty OF the inyennon
ed simpy 0r upon p1iorty OF
The court is therefore of the opinion that
while such legislation as that In question may
of trade marks and may be within the compe
tency OF Legislatures whose general power.
lied by the constitutional provision concern
| ing authors and inventors and their writings
and discoveries. The other clause OF tn,
| constitution relied on to support thi
legislation is the third of the same section
which provides that Congress shall have tn
| power TO regulate commerce with foreigi
nations and among the several states, AM
with the Inuian tribes. The argument Is tha
trade mark is used to identity particula
class or quality of goods, and that also, 1t Is
valuable aid or Instrument Of commerce, an
comes within the scope of the constitutions
. provision cited. With regard to this point. tn
; court believes that the clause quoted doesn
bring within the control OF Congress ever
species of property which is the subject {
commerce, or which is used In commert
wallace Va. Louisiana. How, "a; Paul v
= Virginia, Wall, 1857 and that the legislatio
. now In question does not limit the use
: trade marks to inter state or infernstion'
J. 1t be based on the constitution