surface, discloses invention, and is valid. Also held infringed by two protectors, made and sold by defendant, having rolled threads, and not infringed by a third, in which the threads are made by tapping. -National Mfg. Co. v. Blakey, 98 Fed. 890..........39 C. C. A. 330 The Roper patent, No. 316,401, for a magazine firearm having an actuating hand-piece beneath the barrel, and connected with a piston-breech, for removing exploded shells and inserting cartridges without taking the. gun from the shoulder, held invalid because of prior use. -Bannerman v. Sanford, 99 Fed. 294..... .....39 C. C. A. 534 The Hewitt patent, No. 316,458, for improvements in wire fences, the fence described being formed by a combination of crimped metal pickets, and a series of cables formed of two wires twisted together. between which the pickets are held, is void for lack of patentable invention, as both elements were old, and the crimped pickets merely the equivalents of the notched or grooved wooden pickets known in the prior art. ...... -Lane v. Welds, 99 Fed. 286... ....39 C. C. A. 528 The Thompson patents, No. 332,762, for improvements in gravity switchback railways, and No. 367,252, for improvements in elevated gravity and cable railroads, the latter being for an improvement on the structure of the former, which consists mainly in adding a cable as a motive power for carrying the cars up the ascending grades, with a device for automatically releasing them when they start upon a descending grade, when construed and limited as required by the prior art, are neither of them infringed by the electric pleasure railway of the Lilley patent, No. 549,700. -Noonan v. Chester Park Athletic Club Co., 99 Fed. 90.... 39 C. C. A. 426 The Cutcheon patent, No. 384,893, for improvements in machines for beating out the soles of boots and shoes, was not anticipated by either the Collyer patent, No. 178,598, nor by the De Forest patent, No. 270,936, for an improvement in presses for pressing material of a spongy nature, such as cotton or tobacco. -Bresnahan v. Tripp Giant Leveller Co., 99 Fed. 280.. 39 C. C. A. 508 The Morris patent, No. 401,050, for a machine for inserting diagonal strips in woven cane work, while on its face covering a pioneer invention for automatically doing the work, is not entitled to the broad construction accorded to such patents; the machine described having failed to accomplish the result intended, and no practical machine embodying the invention having ever been constructed. Held, also, not infringed. -Ford v. Bancroft, 98 Fed. 309.. .....39 C. C. A. 91 The Rawson patent, No. 407,963, for an improvement in the production of incandescent mantles, is not void on the ground of prior knowledge and use in this country by Welsbach before the date of the English patent, as, if such knowledge and use existed, it was subsequent to the application for such patent, and hence to the date of the actual invention by the patentees. -Welsbach Light Co. v. American Incandescent Lamp Co., 98 Fed. 613 ....39 C. C. A. 185 Claims 1 and 8 of the Ericson patent, No. 491,012, for a bicycle bell. which is sounded by bringing a friction roller into contact with the tire of the wheel, held limited, under the evidence, to the precise construction shown, and not infringed by the bell of the Barker patent, No. 608,146. .....39 C. C. A. 332 -Nutter v. Brown, 98 Fed. 892... The Lane and Lane patent, No. 518,506, for an improvement in wire fences, which consists in incorporating in a wire picket fence crimped or corrugated wire pickets, with the reverse twisting of the strands of the longitudinal wires between the pickets, which was the usual mode of twisting such wires previously, when the fence was made in the field, whether the pickets were of metal or wood, is void for lack of invention. ..39 C. C. A. 528 -Lane v. Welds, 99 Fed. 286.. 298,368. Fence-machines 300,093. Wire fences PATENTS ENUMERATED. ENGLISH. .531, 532 531 .531, 532 15,255. Incandescent mantles ..... 187 310,966. Roller-coaster structures... 428 FRENCH. 311,171. Thread protectors for iron pipe 316,401. Magazine firearms 172,064. Incandescent mantles..... 187 316,458. Wire fences GERMAN. 41,945. Incandescent mantles..... UNITED STATES. DESIGN. 28.142. Box fasteners. 29,571. Vessel 318,026. Coasting course.. .330, 331 534 .528. 530 .428, 430 rail 426-429 245 428. 430 348,796. Pleasure cable railways. ORIGINAL. 17,692. Wire fences 70,946. Wire fences 101,816. Wire fences 178,598. Machines for beating out shoe soles 241,287. Graphophones 531 407,963. Incandescent mantles. .185, 186 32 shoe soles 508 532 400.086. Phenacetine powder 191 532 531 401,050. Machines for making wov- 91 .508, 512 246 450,753. Box fasteners .... 190 247 332 528, 530 426, 427 332 255,894. Magazine firearms....536, 537 267,948. Wire fences 269,554. Artificial sliding hills. 270,936. Tobacco press .531, 532 549,700. Electric pleasure railways .508, 512608,146. Bicycle bells A helpless and unnavigable vessel, which has sprung a leak, so as to require the use of two steam pumps, and is without master, commander, or crew, having but a dozen laborers aboard, working the pumps, and has only a temporary rudder, and is in tow of a steam tug. is not within Pol. Code Ga. 1895, § 1656, providing that "any person, master, or commander" of a vessel "bearing towards any of the ports, rivers, or harbors of this state" shall be liable to pay the first pilot offering his services, and exhibiting his license, "if demanded by the master," though section 1664 requires the pilot to offer his services to a "vessel in distress," these sections, with section 1657, securing to the pilot bringing the vessel in the right to take her out "unless the master of such vessel shall prove * * * that such pilot misbehaved while in charge of the vessel"; section 1658 providing that the pilot shall moor or dock the vessel, if required by the master on arrival, and section 1666 providing that "the master of a vessel in readiness to leave must, if practicable, give notice to the pilot entitled to conduct the vessel out" showing that a navigable vessel with a master on board, and not one in need of salvage service, is contemplated. -The Saehelm, 99 Fed. 456..... .39 C. C. A. 600 PLEADING. In equity, see "Equity," § 2. 1. Declaration, complaint, petition, or statement. A count in a petition, setting out a contract between plaintiff and defendant, and alleging its breach by defendant, and the damages sustained by plaintiff thereby, for which judgment is asked, and a count alleging the same facts, and, in addition, that a subsequent contract was made between the parties, by which defendant agreed to pay plaintiff a certain sum in compromise and settlement of such claim for damages, that defendant had failed to comply with such agreement, and asking judgment for the amount so agreed to be paid, are not inconsistent under the Code of Procedure of Missouri, since the facts alleged in the two counts are consistent, and they may both properly stand under such Code; the only effect of the additional matter alleged in the second count being, if proved, to liquidate the amount of damages recoverable for the breach of the original contract. -Great Western Coal Co. v. Chicago G. W. Ry. Co., 98 Fed. 274.... § 2. Amended and supplemental pleadings and repleader. Under the statute of Texas (Rev. St. 1895, art. 1188) which provides that all amendments to pleadings must, when court is in session, be filed under leave of court "before the parties announce ready for trial, and not thereafter," while amendments during trial may be permitted in the discretion of the court, and in furtherance of justice, a refusal of such permission is not error unless an abuse of discretion is shown. -Merchants' Life Ass'n of United States v. Yoakum, 98 Fed. 251..... 39 C. C. A. 56 Under its general power to allow amendment of pleadings, a trial court may, in its discretion, permit the amendment of a bill of particulars attached to the declaration. -Laflin v. Shackleford, 98 Fed. 372.......... .39 C. C. A. 102 3. Defects and objections, waiver, and aider by verdict or judgment. Where a plaintiff is erroneously required to elect, before trial, between two counts of his petition, which state the same cause of action in different forms, and under which there could be but a single recovery, and he saves an exception to such ruling, he does not waive the exception by going to trial on the remaining count. -Great Western Coal Co. v. Chicago G. W. Ry. Co., 98 Fed. 274..... 39 C. C. A. 79 See "Adverse Possession." POSSESSION. POST OFFICE. § 1. Post-office department, post offices, postmasters, and other officers. The fact that a postmaster's bond does not contain the additional condition required by Rev. St. § 3834, relating to money-order business, does not relieve him or his sureties from liability for money-order funds misappropriated by him. Such additional condition is cumulative, and the money-order business is a trust imposed on the postmaster by a “regulation of the department," within both the spirit and letter of the general condition, which is for the faithful discharge of all such duties and trusts. -Grady v. United States, 98 Fed. 238.. ...39 C. C. A. 42 In admiralty, see "Salvage," § 2. PRACTICE. In bankruptcy, see "Bankruptcy," § 1. In equity, see "Equity." On appeal or writ of error, see "Appeal and Error"; "Exceptions, Bill of." Particular proceedings in action, see "Dismissal and Nonsuit"; "Evidence"; "Judgment"; "Jury"; "Limitation of Actions"; "Pleading"; "Removal of Causes"; "Trial." remedies in or incident to actions, see "Attachment"; "Garnishment"; "Receivers." Procedure of particular courts, see "Courts." Prosecution of actions in general, see "Action," § 1. See "Factors." PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. PRINCIPAL AND SURETY. Liabilities on bonds for performance of duties of trust or office, see "Receivers," § 4. in legal proceedings, see "Attachment," § 1. 1. Discharge of surety. Where a contract for the construction of a dry dock for the United States, "to be located at such place on the water line of the navy yard, Brooklyn, N. Y., as shall be designated by the party of the second part," had attached thereto and made a part thereof the plans and specifications for the dock, reserving the right to the United States to make changes in such plans and specifications, the difference in the contract price on account of any such changes to be determined as therein provided, and contained a further provision that "no change herein provided for shall in any manner affect the validity of this contract," a supplemental contract, changing the location of the entire dry dock from the water line, as fixed by the initial contract, to a point 64 feet inland, and requiring the contractor to make all necessary excavations and connections with the water at an increased payment of $5,000, and with an increased time for performance, was not within the terms of such provision, but was a change in substance of the contract, not contemplated thereby, which released the sureties on the contractor's bond, who did not assent thereto, from liability. -United States v. Freel, 99 Fed. 237.... PRIVILEGE. Of married women, see "Husband and Wife," § 1. PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS. Defamatory communications, see "Libel and Slander," § 2. ...39 C. C. A. 491 PROCESS. See "Garnishment"; "Mandamus." PROPERTY. Adverse possession, see "Adverse Possession." Constitutional guaranties of rights of property, see "Constitutional Law," § 3. Particular species of property, see "Copyrights"; "Shipping"; "Trade-Marks and Trade-Names." QUIETING TITLE. 1. Right of action and defenses. Under the Illinois statute which permits the bringing of a suit to quiet title only by one in possession, or one claiming title to land which is vacant and unoccupied, the construction on a tract of land, by a claimant, of a structure of rough boards, 8 or 10 feet square, with a flat roof, having no foundation, chimney, or windows, and a door with no lock, not intended for a dwelling, or for any other use, as far as shown, and which was in fact never used, does not constitute such possession and occupation of the land as will support a suit to quiet title; nor can the complainant, having alleged in his bill actual occupancy of the land, on the failure of the proof to sustain such allegation, claim that the land was vacant and unoccupied, for the purpose of bringing the case within the other provision of the statute. -Jackson v. Simmons, 98 Fed. 768.. .39 C. C. A. 514 RAILROADS. See "Street Railroads." Carriage of goods and passengers, see "Carriers." 1. Railroad companies. The provision of Const. Ill. art. 11, § 13, that no railroad corporation shall issue any stock or bonds except for money, labor, or property ac tually received and applied to the purposes for which such corporation was organized, and that all stock dividends and other fictitious increase of the capital stock of any such corporation shall be void, does not render invalid stock issued by a railroad company, directly or indirectly, in payment for the construction of its road; nor can a court hold it invalid on a determination that the consideration so received was not equal to the par value of the stock. -Lake St. El. R. Co. v. Ziegler, 99 Fed. 114; Ziegler v. Lake St. El. The issuance of stock by a railroad corporation in violation of such provision is ultra vires, and the stock void in the hands of all holders, and the corporation cannot maintain a suit against the person to whom it was issued to require an accounting for its proceeds. -Lake St. El. R. Co. v. Ziegler, 99 Fed. 114; Ziegler v. Lake St. El. 2. Indebtedness, securities, liens, and mortgages. A railroad company, empowered by statute to execute a guaranty of the bonds of another company under certain conditions, and having executed such guaranty, cannot urge its noncompliance with the conditions to defeat its liability thereon, as against bona fide purchasers of the bonds. -Central Trust Co. of New York v. Indiana & L. M. R. Co., 98 Fed. 666 .. .39 C. C. A. 220 It having been settled by repeated decisions of the state courts and the supreme court of the United States that a railroad company has no power |