National Republican., 1882-11-14
SOME DECISIONS.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
Patent Case-Indemnlfylng BOnd-Forcclosure Of
Certain Mortgages Recovery Of Mining
Property-A New Rule OF the Court
Relative TO Clerks Fees.

decision was rendered by the Supreme Court
OF the United States Monday in the patent case of
Simon Wing ct al. against Edward Anthony ct al,
brought here by appeal from the circuit court of
the United States for the southern district OF New
York. This was a suit brought by Wing and
Others against Edward and Henry 7. Anthony and
Vincent II. Wilcox for alleged infringement by
the latter of a reissued patent upon an improve
ment in plate holders for Photographic cameras.
The original patent was granted to Albert s.
souhworth April 10, 1856. The reissue bears date
of September 25 1860. The court holds that the
claim of the reissued patent Is for different in
vcntion from that described in the original patent,
ana that the reissue is therefore void. The decree
oil The circuit court is affirmed with costs. Opinion
by Justice Woods
A decision was also rendered by the court in the
case of Eliza ID. Pritchard, exeuutrix, &c, plain
tiff In error, EX. Norton. In error 10 the cir
cult court of the United States for the district of
louisiana. The question presented by this case is
collateral obligation,. given in the State of New
York by resident of that State, and containing
no stipulation as 10 place of payment, is TO have
is binding force aud legal effect determined by
the law OF that State. Pritchard sued Norton in
Louisiana on bond of indemnity given by The
latter In New York. Norton set up the defense
that the bond was executed and delivered in New
York without any consideration, and that by the
laws of that State bonds given without considera-
tion are void. This court holds that where II place
OF performance is not specified in the contract an
endeavor must be made 10 ascertain the
presumption may be that the obllgor has
voluntarily submitted himself to pnrticula
local law that presumption may be rebuttcd
either by an express declaration 10 the contrary
by the fnct that the obligation is illeg i by that
particular law, though legal by another; the par
ties cannot he presumed to have contemplated
law which would defeat their engagement. In
the present case the court is of opinion that the
bond of indemnity sued on was entered into with
view TO the law of Louisiana as the pace for the
iuhlment OF its obligation, ard that the question
therefore OF Us validity as depending on the char:
he'ef e an1 Snfieey M oi ae Sohs,Iera,ion shouid @
that of New York. For error in its rulings on this
point the judgment of the circuit court is reversed
with directions to grant new trial. Opinion by
Justice Matthews.
No. So. The Equator Mining and Smelling Com
pany, plaintif i'll error, VS.: George w. Hall and e.
II. Marshall In error to the circuit court of the
United States for the district OF Colorado. This
was suit brought By the Equator Company
ing property oil the Colorado Central Lode. The
principal questions presented here are: Firsi,
whether section 254 of the Civil Code of Colorado
gives to either party in suit tie right to have ut
least one new trial without showing cause; aud
second whether the circuit court of the United
States sitting in Colorado is to be governed by the
statu e Of that State on this subject This court
answers both of these questions in the affirmative,
reverses the Judgment of the court below. and
remunds the cause with directions to award o
new trial. Opinion by Justice Miller
No. Sl4. The Farmers Loan and Trust Company
ct al, appellants, vs. Christian Waterman and
eleven hundred others Appeal from ihe circuit
court of the United States for the district of Ind
ana. This is a consolidated appeal from large
number of DEGREES entered in suit pending in
the court below for the foreclosure Of certain
mortgages on the property of the indianapolis,
bloomington and Western Railway Company.
The appellees u, ,l63 in number) assert claims
against the company for labor and supplies. Only
fourteen of these claims exceed Sj,0JO. The mo-
tion to dismiss is granted as to all parties whose
claims do not amount to 5000. The motion TO
affirm is denied. Opinion by ChefJustice Waite
OTHER DECISIONS.
The other decisions rendered were as follows:
No. 6S. Oases A Ames ct al. plaintiffs in error,
VS.. lchabod L. Quimby. In error to the circuit
court of the United States for the western district
| of Michigan. Judgment affirmed, with costs and
interest. Opinion by Justice Blatchiord.
No. 60. Silas Seymour ct al, plaintiffs i'll error,
vs. The Western Railroad Company. In error to
the circuit court of the United states for the
with costs and cause remanded with directions to
set aside the verdict and order new trial. Opn-
No 46. America C. and John r. Bedford, appel
lants, VS.. G. w. Burton. Appeal from the circuit
court of the United states for the middle district
Of Tennessee. Decree affirmed with costs. Opinion
No. 81. Moses Feibelman, plaintiff in error VS.
Stephen i. Packard ct al. In error to the circuit
| Louisiana. Dismissed with costs. Opinion by
| Chief-Justice Waite.
and ID Ann M Smith. Appeal from the S Supreme prem Court court
| of Utah. Decree affirmed with costs Opinion by
No i49. Samuel and Emanuel Kahn plaintiffs
| in error, VS.. Claude Hamilton and John Elliott,
trustees, aud No. $50, Isaac Woolf, plaintiff in
preme Court of Utah Dismissed with costs on
thority of decision in case of Hecht VS.. Boughton
mo. 9l2, October term, 1881. Decision announced
No. lO63 The County OF San Mateo, California
plaintiff in error, vs. The Southern Pacific Rail-
road Company. Motion to advance granted pro-
the presentterm not later than the month of De-
| cember.
Motions to advance were denied in cases Nos.
The other business transacted was as follows:
No. 1867. Edward Schwed ct al, appellants, VS..
William smith ct al. Arguments submitted on
motion 10 dismiss.
No. lii. Charles H. Holden ct al, plaintiffs in
| error, vs.. Daniel Smith. Arguments submitted on
No. 1853 The American Ballast Log Company,
appellant, VS.. John IL. Barnes ct al Appeal from
the circuit of the United States for the dis
trict of Maryland. On motion of John H. Barnes,
docketed and dismissed, with costs.
No. 104l. Charles F. Kring, plaintiff in error, VS.
| The State Of Missouri. Arguments submitted on
No. 81 Wallace s. Jones. executor &C., appel
| lant VS.. William n. Habersham ct al, executors.
Argument commenced. Adjourned.
NEW RULE.
At the end of the reading of opinions Chief.
Justice Waite announced new rule in the United
States Supreme Court with regard to the fees OF
the clerk OF that court upon records of cases filed
| in his office and sent by him to the Government
Printer During the past half century ii has been
the practice OF the clerk, with the express sane
script copy of the record in every case, whether
matter of fact such copy was actually made
for the printer, or whether the latter used the
original The object of this was to allow the clerk
in every case compensation for the labor per-
formed by him In preparing the record for the
printer, reading and correcting proof, &c. Under
the new rule announced original opies of records
may still be sent to the printer instead of copies
where there is no objection TO that course; but In
such cases the clerk is permitted to charge only
one. half of the fees allowed when Il munus cripI
copy is actually made, Instead of full fees, here
tofore.