National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1882-01-17
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

The Supreme Court of the United States rendered
n decision Oh Monday in the patent case of
Christian Worley ct al. vs. The Loker Tobacco
Company, which was q suit brought by the ap-
pcllnns, who were complainants below, to re-
strain the alleged infringement of patent upon
nn improved method of finishing tobacco plugs by
hot pressing between thin metallic plates. The
court holds that according TO the cOmplainants
own showingthc alleged ncwnnd improved process
had been in public use two years before the patent
was granted suit upon that patent for In
fringement cannot, therefore, be sustained. The
decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed. Opinion
by Justice Woods.
No 1856. Peter Jones ct al VS.. John and Mary L.
BucRel. The question argued in this case was
insurrectionary purposes, passed August 9, 1881,
carried the fee of lands cOnscated or only the life
estate of the owner. The court holds, however,
that the record does not fairly present this ques-
ton for this courts consideration and 1t declines,
therefore, to decide it.. The Judgment below is af-
irmed Opinion by Chief Justice Waite.
THE TAX COURT OF BALTIMORE.
Adhesion was also rendered by the court yeser-
day in the tax case of Charles J. Bonaparte, exec
utor, against the Appeal Tax Court Of Baltimore
city The plaintiff in error asserts that certain
registered New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio
state bonds and stocks held by him are not liable
to taxation by the State of Maryland, and he brings
the present suit to get u decision upon the ques-
tions: First-Is the registered public debt of one
State, owned by resident of another, constitu.
Sccond-If so taxable otherwise, can 1t still
be taxed, although the State Of issue
has asserted its sovereignty over the property by
either taxing II or eNcmpting 1t from taxation IN
the law of issue? This court replies to these ques
tons as follows First 1t is insisted BY the plaintiff
iu error that the immunity from taxation in
Maryland arises from that provision of Article w.,
section of the Constitution of the United States,
which provides that full faith and credit shall be
given in each State TO the public acts Of every
other State. We are unable to give such an effect
to this provision. No State can legislate except
with reference to its own Jurisdiction. Que
State cannot exempt property from taxation in
another. Each State Is Independent OF all the
Others In this particular. Second, taxation OF the
debt within the debtor State does not change the
legal siis.of the debt for any other purpose than
that of the tax which is imposed. Neither does
exemption from taxation. AS the sttLs of the debt
jeot Of taxation there unless exempt by the local
laws The Judgment of the court below is affirmed.
Opinion by ChiefJustice Waite.
THE OTHER DECISIONS WERE AS FOLLOWS:
No. &C. benjamin II. MCon ct al, appellants, VS..
The First National Bank of Montgomery, Ala. De-
cree reversed with costs, and cause remanded with
directions to dismiss the BILL Opinion by Justice
No i57. Daniel II. Elwood, plaintiff in error, VS.
Patrick NJ. Flanagan. In error TO the United
states Circuit Court for the Northern District OF
Illinois. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion
by Chief Justice Waite.
No. $50. William II, Evans ct Nl,, plaintiffs In
error vs. The Mayor and City Council NASHVILLE
Tenn. In error TO the Supreme Court of Tcnnes-
see Decree affirmed with costs. opinion by
No 1855. Robert l.. Brady administrator vs. The
United States. Appeal from the Court of Claims
Judgment affirmed, Opinion by Chief Justice
No, 93s. Thomas NJ Gilmer ct al. plaintiffs IN
error, VS.. Henry II. Jones ct al. In error to the
Supreme Court Of louisiana Dismissed, with
No 966 The Factors and Traders Insurance
Company, plalntih In error, VS.. Widow MarS
Murphy ct al Motion to dismiss or affirm de-
MED.
No 1918 Brooke Mackall jr,, appellant, VS.. Al
fred Richards ct al, Motion TO dismiss denied.
No. l0i4. Marshall II, Iwltchell ct al, plaintiff
| in error VS., George n Stafford executor. Motor
TO dismiss or affirm denied.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS.
The following miscellaneous business was trans
No. 55l. Wallace w. Rollins plaintiff In error, VS.
The Western North Carolina Railroad Company
Dismissed.
No. sos. j. A. Thatcher ct al plaintiffs In error VS.
Watson b, Rockwell, Arguments submitted OF
motion to dismiss or affirm,
No. 1893. William Craig, appellant, VS.. Thoma
| Leitensdorler Appeal from the United states Cir
cult Court for the district Of Colorado. Dockete,
| and dismissed with COSTS
| No. 1854. Wilson Ager ct al, appellants, VS.
TulbOt G, Murray, Submitted.
/ No iU78 The United states iappellant, vs. Law
reucO s. HabDtt. Submitted.
No. ilB6. Ira Davenport, plantif in error, vs. Tn
! County Of Dodge. submitted,
| No. IL Original ex parcl, J, II. V. CockcTof Re
! tition fol writ OF fmandamus submitted, on moto
/ for rule TO show cause,
| Admissions 10 the baT-RObert Kitle, Of Ere
mont, Nebr and Henry G. Barnard, Of Detroit
| Mich.
| The Chief Justice yesterday announced th
adoption oil a new rule with regard 10 writs of erro
and appeals under section Of the act Of March ;
| 1875,