National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1882-01-10
UNITED srATEs SUPREME COURT.

In the Supreme Court Of the United States on
Monday Justice Gray was sworn and took his seat
on the bcuch.
A number Of important patent cases were dc.
odcd by the court yesterday, aud among them tic
No ii. Henry w. Stow, appellant. vs. The City
Of Chicago Appeal from the Circuit Court of tho
United States for the Northern District Of Illinois
This was SUIT brought By Slow against the city
for alleged infringement of patents owned by him
upon improvements in street pavemcnts. This
court holds that there was no infringement; that
thcnppelantis notentitled to any reliefagainst We
appellee upon either of The patents on which MS
demand Tor relief is now based and that his case
as presented here has no ground to stand on. The
decree of the Circuit Court dismissing his bill is
therefore, am med Opinion by Justice Woods.
Justice Field did not sit in this case, and took no
part In its decision.
Bridgeport Comm Brass Company. This was
suit brought by Miller Co. to restrain the Bridge
port Brnss Company from the infringement OF a
twicc-re sued patent upon an Improvement in
lamps. The court below dismissed the bill on the
ground that the second reissue on which the suit
was based, was not for the same invention which
patent This court adopts that view and
says that the power given by the
Law 10 issue new patent upon the surrender oil
the original for the correction of errors and mis-
takes has been greatly misunderstood aud abused.
II WIS not the purpose OF the legislation on this
subject to authorize the surrender Of patents fol
the purpose OF having them rcissuCd with broader
and more comprehensive claims, although under
the general terms Of the law such reissue
may be made where II clearly appears that an act
uni mistake has inadvertently been made. But by
curious misapplication OF the law 1t hos come to
be principally resorted to for the purpose of en-
lNrgng and expanding patent claims, and the
evils which have grown out Of this practice have
assumed large proportions. Patonts have been 81
issue, that hundreds rnd thousands Of
mechanics and manufacturers, who had
just reason TO suppose that the field OF
tnue their cmployments or pay an enormous tax
for continuing them. The granting of reissue OF
patent for the purpose Of having It's scope
widened alter All unreas nablc delay is clearly al
abuse Of the power to grant reissues, and may
justly be declared illegal ard void; 1t will moi
do for the petentee to wait until other IN IN
| provement aud then with the new light
| thus acquired, under pretense of inadver'
mcnt OF his claim to make II embrace these new
| FORMS Such process ofexpunsiUu carried on in.
definitely, without regard to lapse Of ume, woult
| totally unauthorized by law. In such n case evei
he who has rlghts,and sleeps upon them, JuSll,
| loses them. The decree Of the Circuit Court dis
missing tue bill Is affirmed. opinion by justice
Bradley.
Justice Field read the opinion of the court yes
terdny IN tile case Of the Bank of Commerce. o
Memphis, Tenn, against the State Of Tennessee
Ut al.-u case which involves the quest ion whcthc
real estate taken by Tennessee bank to sccur
| itself from loss by reason 4 loan made in tn
regular course of business and held by such baiil
only temporarily Is exempt from State taxation
THIS cUult holds that nll cal property held by tn
pose designated in its charter-vz., for its own US
! as II place of hnSiness-iS subject to the genera
taxing pnwer of tine State. Inc Judgment OF IN
court below is aihm med. Opinion by Justice Field
| Anoti.c patent question OF Importance was dc
Cided by the court yesterday in tho OF TnomN
H. James. appellant, W. Christopher G. Campbell
| 1t al. Samuel X. ClextOn, appellant, VIZ. Christie
pher C. Campbell, assignee, Sc, ct al, and Chris
topher G. Campbell, assignee ct al, appellants, VI
Thomas l.. james. Appeals from the CircultCoul
| of the United States for the Southern Distii {
New York. The principal question prcscnte
| by these cases is the validity of a cera
! rei,sued patent, granted originally 10 Marcus
| Norton upOn an improved pOst-Uilice mnrkii
| aud cnnculliug hand stamp, which Is now In gel
erRl use in the post Offices Ol the country If ia
patent lie held TO Lc valid the further qneStiO
arises whether the Gnited States Govern
mcnt is liable in. damages 10 tue IL
ventor or his assignccs for infringement
This court holds, first, tUat tie combination Of I'll
printing and cru-lng instrument Ly crOSs.bt
and shank or handle, which brought the fore
employed In the stroke to act equally aud similltG
neUusly on all the surface to be impressed. hu
been anticipated by other inventions before u
patent To Norton was gfautcd; tcund, that VIII
The original patent 10 Norton might have bee
because IL Is not for the sanic invention which III
original patent set forth Tie decree oi the CirCu
Court is reversed, and the cause rcmanded, wit
Instructions to dismiss the ILL Opinion by Jus,it
Bradley. Justice Miller dissenting
Another case decided yesterday was No. 6
Nathan G. Draper, appellant, W. Anthony Hyde
al. Appeal from the Supitm COult NJ tue DlSt!i
of Columbia. Decree affirmed, with costs OpiI
ion by Justice Bradley.