Year: 1875

UTAH-JCRISDICTION OF THE PROBATE COURT.


WASHINGTON August Il, 1875


FrederickT Perrs ct al VS. William G. Higley ct al
Error to the Supreme Court Of the Territory of Utah.
Upon this question the Court decided follows, Mr.
Justice Miller delivering the opinion:-


The suit action promssory note for 81 800
brought by plaintiff in aud paintir below in the
Probate Court of Salt Lake county. He recovered
judgment in the Probate Court The case, coming into
the District Court of the Third Judicial district
reversed the ground that the Probate Court had
jurisdiction Of such u suit and this Judgment being
affirmed appeal to the Supreme Court it s
brought here by writ of error to that Court
The single question in the is whether the Probate
Court had jurisdiction hear and determine such
action and this be decided by II construction of
the of the Territory and the provisions Of the
Of Congress organizing the Territory The act Of Con-
gress under which Utah was organized Territory
provided for Il Supreme Court, district courts,
probate courts and justices of the peace
and distributed the Judicial power among them
1t gave to the Supreme and district


general Jurisdiction at common law and in Chancery
and limited and defined the powers Of the justices OF the
peace II declared that the Legislative power should eX-
tend to all rlghtiul subjects OF legislation not nconsst-
ent with the constitution of the United States or with
the organic act The act of the Territorial Legislature
comforting probate courts general jurisdiction in
civil and criminal cases both in Chancery ana at common
law is Inconsistent with the organic act ana Is lnere
fore void


PATENT REISSUE INFRINGEMENT.


No. 81. Ira Gill; plaintiff in error vs. Eliza Wells, ad-
ministratrx of Henry r. Wells, dcceased-ln to
the Circuit Court for the Southern district of New
York.-Thc following is the substance Of the opinion
delivered by Mr. Justice Clifford in the Of the al
legged infringement Of Improvements in feeding fur after
it has been picked by rotating brush Valid letters
patent may be granted for invention which consists
entirely in combination of old in





combination of the ingredients produces u new
and useful result; but the rule is equally
well settled in such that the invention
that a suit for infringement be maintained
against party who constructs uses substantially
different combination even though includes exactly the
same ingredients. Alterations, however, in Il combina
ton which are merely formal do not constitute de-
fence to the charge of Infringement the inventor of
new and useful combination OF old ingredients is
much entitled to claim equivalents any other class of
inventors; but they cannot suppress subsequent inn
provements which are substantially different from their
inventions, whether the new Improvement consists OF
new combination of the same ingredients or of some
newly discovered Ingredient or even of some old in
gredicnt performing some new function not known at the
gredicnt withdrawn Old ingredients, known at the date
of letters patent granted for invention consisting of
new combination of old ingredients, if also known at
that date proper substitute for one or more of the
ingredients OF the invention secured by the letters
patent are the equivalents of the corresponding
ingredients OF the patented combination. Such
old ingredients, so known at the date Of the let
patent granted, the equivalents of the ingre-
dients of the patented combination and Others and it
may be added that that and that only is what is
by the rule that inventors OF new combination OF old
ingredients much entitled TO claim equivalents
any other class of inventors


Reissued patents, in order that they may be valid
must be for the same invention the surrendered
originals. Imperative or invalid patents, which are
by OF II defective insufficient specification
by that the ptentec claimed his own invention
OF discovery more than he had a right to claim
new, may be surrendered if the error arose by
inadyertence, accident mistake, and without any
fraudulent deceptive intention; and the provision is
that the commission in that event SHALL upon the pay
OF the required by law, patent
tor the invention, and in accordance with the
reced specification be issued to the proper party
prescribed IN the ly-thrd section of the Patent act
Q6 stat. ut Large 20GL Unquestionaby the specica-
tons in such may be amended 10 correct
which has arisen by nadvertence accident mistake
IL without any fraudulent deceptive intention; but
the express provision in the Patent act is that
matter shall be introduced into the specification,
and that IN the case OF patent for machine neither
the model drawings shall be amended except each
by the other, which very important provision to
the ulment of the condition that the reissued
patent shall be for the invention that secured
by the original patent The rulings below having been
in disregard OF these principles the decree is reversed