Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1880-01-20
SUPREME COURT,
DECISIONS RENDERED .

WASHINGTON, Jan. 19.-No. Civilian c.
NJ: Baker, appellant, VS.. Elizabeth Tilden; ap-
peal from the circuit court of the United
States for the Southern district of Ohio. This
was a suit for alleged infringement of copy
right upon Tilden' condensed system of book
keeping. The principal question involved is
whether a copyright of book affords pro-
tectien to 4 method of accomplishing certain
result in arts or sciences, and which is explain
ed and set forth in such book, the
court hold that there is clear distinction be-
tween book as SUCH and act on process
which it is Intended to illustrate, and that to
give the author of q book an exclusive right to
the art described therein when no examina-
ton as to its novelty has ever been made,
would be fraud upon the public. To give
such right is the province of letters patent,
not of copyright. The copyright of a
book on bookkeeping cannot secure
the exclusive right to make.
sell and use account books prepared upon the
plan set forth in such book. The decree of
the circuit court is reversed with costs, and the
cause reuanded with directions to dismiss
compliments bill.
No. 141-William Trenouth, plaintiff in en-
ror, We. the City and County of San Francisco
ct al, in error. To the supreme court of Cali
fornia: This is controversy as to the title to
certain lands in the city of San Francisco
which were granted to the city by an act of
of Congress, March S, 1866, and
by the city decided to defendants.
Trenouth sets mp claim to the lands on the
ground that his grantors were in possession
thereof at the time the act of 1866 passed, and
that one of them was q pre-emptCr under the
laws of the United States. This court snstains
the opiE ion of the district and supreme courts
below that the TrenOuth grantOrs, upon
his own showing, were intruders, who never
had bona fde possession of the lands.
In question, that the right Of pre- emption
could not have been acquired by tresspass and
that the lands were claimed by the United
States under foreign title; that of Pueblo from
| Mexico, which claim was pending before the
tribunals of the United States at the time of
presumption. Judgment affirmed with costs.
No. 133-Henry Havenstein ct al, plaintiffs
| in error, Us. John A. LYMAN, escheator, etc.
This was suit brought by the foreign heirs of
| an alien resident of Virginia to recover prop
erty of which the latter died possessed. Solo
mon Havenstein was a subject of the Swiss
| confederation, and died intestate in the city of
Richmond in 1861 leaving considerable landed
property, to which the State laid
| claim, on the ground that the for
| eiRn beirs of deceased could not inherit.
| Upon trial of the case the court below decided
that the foreign heirs had no valid claim to the
estate, and their petition was dismissed. The
| judgment was affirmed by the supreme court of
appeals, whereupon petitioners sued out a
writ of error to this court. 1t is here held that
| under the fifth section of the treaty of the
United States with Switzerland, ratified Nov.
25, 1850, alien heirs have q right to sell
property of deceased and withdraw
the proceeds thereof within such time as the
laws of the State where the property is sit
uated may permit. The efficiency of this
treaty has been guaranteed by the constitution,
and it has therefore become the supreme law
of the land. The fact that the State of Vir-
glnia has fixed no time within which property
n ust be sold. makes no difference 80 far as the
rights of foreign heirs are concerned.
Until such law shall be passed their right
of action caunot be barred by lapse oftime, and
they are entitled to recover aud sell the pro-
perty, to carry away the proceeds. The decree
of the lower court is revised with costs and
the cause remanded for further proceedings in
| conformity with this opinion.
No. 142.-The National Savings Bank of the
District of Columbia, plaintiff in error, vs..
VIM. H. Ward, in error to the Supreme Court
of the District of Columbia. This was a suit
brought by the bank against Ward to recover
$4,000 damages alleged to have been
sustained by it through the careless
ness and negligence of Ward in
examining and reporting on the title to GER
tain real estate in the city of Washington.
This court holds that since Wood was not en-
ployed by the bank to made this search, but
made it at the request of the alleged owner cf
the property, and since he was not paid
by the bank, there is nothing
to show any such privity
of contract between the bank and himself as
would make him responsible for losses in
CURED by the bank through errors or omissions
in his search. Judgment of the lower court
affirmed with costs. Justice Clifford delivered
the opinion. The chief justice delivered dis
senting opinion, in which he held that when
lawyer employed to examine and certify to
the recorded title of real property, gives his
client certificate, which he knows Ur ought
to know, Is to be used by the client in a
business transaction with another person, as
evidence of facts certified, he is liable to such
other person.