Criminal law. Felony, at common law, was any crime which occasioned total forfeiture of offender's lands or goods, p. 423.

Approved in Bannon, etc. v. United States, 156 U. S. 468, 39 L. 496, 15 S. Ct. 469, holding that infamous punishment provided did not make crime a felony; Reagan v. United States, 157 U. S. 303. 39 L. 710, 15 S. Ct. 610, holding crime of receiving smuggled goods not a felony; Kurtz v. Moffitt, 115 U. S. 499, 29 L. 460, 6 S. Ct. 152, arguendo.

Criminal law. Rulings of certain Circuit and District Courts as to what constitutes infamous crime, discussed and rejected, pp. 425, 426.

Approved in Andrews v. Hovey, 124 U. S. 717, 31 L. 563, 8 S. Ct. €85, holding construction of statute, by commissioner of patents, not conclusive; Capital Traction Co. v. Hof. 174 U. S. 41, 19 S. Ct. 596, refusing to follow line of decisions in courts of District of Columbia.

Indictment and information.- Test of infamous crime, under fifth amendment to Constitution, is whether statute authorizes court to award infamous punishment; e. g., imprisonment for term of years at hard labor. In such case, he may not be put upon trial, except on accusation of grand jury, pp. 425, 429.

Approved in United States v. Petit, 114 U. S. 430, 29 L. 94, 5 S. Ct. 1190, where prisoner was sentenced to five years' hard labor, for counterfeiting; Mackin v. United States, 117 U. S. 350, 351, 29 L. 910, 911, 6 S. Ct. 778, reviewing authorities, where prisoner was charged with fraudulent altering of poll-book, etc.; Ex parte Bain, 121 U. S. 13, 30 L. 853, 7 S. Ct. 787, conviction for making false report as bank cashier; Parkinson v. United States, 121 U. S. 282, 30 L. 960, 7 S. Ct. 896, conviction for fraudulent voting; Medley, Petitioner, 134 U. S. 169, 33 L. 839, 10 S. Ct. 386, law changing punishment to solitary confinement, held ex post facto; In re Mills, 135 U. S. 267, 34 L. 109, 10 S. Ct. 763, conviction for selling liquor to Indians; In re Claasen, 140 U. S. 204, 35 L. 411, 11 S. Ct. 737, citing cases, conviction under R. S., § 5209; Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U. S. 234, 237, 41 L. 142, 143, 16 S. Ct. 979, 981, holding imprisonment of Chinese at hard labor, under act of May 5, 1892, unlawful; United States v. Tod, 25 Fed. 815, 816, offenses, under 88 4746, 5418, and 5479, R. S., must be prosecuted by indictment; United States v. Harmon, 34 Fed. 873, holding indictment for sending obscene matter through mail did not sufficiently specify same; United States v. Johannesen, 35 Fed. 413, informations for violations of revenue laws, held demurrable; Ex parte M'Clusky, 40 Fed. 72, 73, 74, holding prisoners could not waive right to be prosecuted for larceny by indictment; Ex parte Brown, 40 Fed. 83, assault with Intent to kill; United States v. Smith, 40 Fed. 757, 758. 759, 760, refusing to allow information to be filed for intimidating voters;

United States v. Cobb, 43 Fed. 571, sustaining demurrer to infor miton for violation of Federal election laws; United States v. Sutton, 47 Fed. 130, holding adultery an infamous crime within act of March 3, 1891, as to appeals; Ex parte Van Vranken, 47 Fed. 889, releasing civilian prisoner convicted by court-martial; United States Wong Dep Ken, 57 Fed. 209, annulling decree sentencing Chinese to State prison, under Geary act of 1892; United States v. Cadwallader, 59 Fed. 679. embezzlement, etc., from national bank, described in R. S., § 5209; Stokes v. United States, 60 Fed. 598, 23 U. 8. App. 289, construing term "infamous crime," used in fifth section judiciary act of 1891; In re Kirby, 84 Fed. 607, disbarring attorney convicted of receiving stolen goods; People v. Kipley. 171

73, 49 N. E. 239, 41 L. R. A. 785, disqualification for holding public office is an infamous punishment; Crum v. State, 148 Ind. 40, 47 N. E. 836, larceny held infamous crime, justifying disfranchisement; State v. Clark, 60 Kan. 455, 56 Pac. 769, conviction of grand larceny rendered witness incompetent, as one convicted of Infamous crime; Bright v. Patton, 5 Mack. 534, 60 Am. Rep. 399, offer should not arrest without warrant, where punishment only fine and imprisonment; Butler v. Wentworth, 84 Me. 32, 24 Atl. 458, 17 L. R. A. 766, 767, and n., illegal transportation of liquors, pun stable by one year's imprisonment; Danner v. State, 89 Md. 226 228 42 Atl. 967, holding one accused of petit larceny, maximum punishment eighteen months, entitled to jury trial; Fuller v. United Fates, 3 N. Mex. 444, 9 Pac. 597, quashing information for larceny; Harris v. Terry, 98 N. C. 134, 3 S. E. 746, disqualification to hold office is infamous punishment; dissenting opinion in O'Neil v. Ver. mont, 144 U. S. 340, 36 L. 459, 12 S. Ct. 700, majority sustaining tence to hard labor, for selling liquor; Rosen v. United States, 151 U. S. 45, 40 L. 611, 16 S. Ct. 481, majority holding obscene matter sufficiently set out in indictment for sending it through mail; Talted States v. Clark, 31 Fed. 713, and The Paquete Habana, 175 ↑ 8. 682, 20 S. Ct. 293, generally; United States v. Van Leuven, 2 Fed. 68, arguendo. See 10 Sawy. 135, note.

Distinguished in Bannon v. United States, 156 U. S. 467, 39 L.

15 8. Ct. 469, holding infamous punishment affixed did not raise rrime to grade of felony; United States v. Cobb, 43 Fed. 573, susaining information where possible punishment did not exceed one yeas Imprisonment; State v. Whisner, 35 Kan. 278, 10 Pac. 857, Boding violations of prohibition law might be prosecuted by in

tion; State v. Nolan. 15 R. I. 531, 10 Atl. 482, when maximum alty was three months in county jail, punishment was not infamong

Criminal law. Imprisonment at hard labor, compulsory and

d is involuntary servitude for crime, within provision of ari nane of 1787, and thirteenth amendment to Constitution, p. 429. Approved in concurring opinion in Wong Wing v. United States,

163 U. S. 242, 41 L. 145, 16 S. Ct. 983, holding imprisonment of Chinese at hard labor, under act of May 5, 1892, illegal; Topeka v. Boutwell, 53 Kan. 31, 35 Pac. 822, 27 L. R. A. 603, and n., obiter.

Distinguished in People v. Hanrahan, 75 Mich. 621, 42 N. W. 1127, 4 L. R. A. 755, sustaining ordinance which provided for payment of fine, or imprisonment until paid; concurring opinion in Topeka v. Boutwell, 53 Kan. 38, 35 Pac. 825, 27 L. R. A. 613, and n., sustaining ordinance requiring prisoners to work out fines.

Habeas corpus.- Conviction of and sentence for crime punishable by infamous punishment, without presentment or indictment by grand jury, is without jurisdiction, and one held under such sentence may be released upon habeas corpus, pp. 422, 429.

Approved in United States v. Petit, 114 U. S. 430, 29 L. 94, 5 S. Ct. 1190, discharging prisoner convicted of counterfeiting; In re Snow, 120 U. S. 286, 30 L. 663, 7 S. Ct. 562, releasing prisoner, where record showed court's want of jurisdiction to convict; Ex parte Bain, 121 U. S. 14, 30 L. 853, 7 S. Ct. 788, discharging prisoner when court changed indictment; In re Sawyer, 124 U. S. 221, 31 L. 409, 8 S. Ct. 493, writ issued when prisoners were committed for contempt of injunction issued without jurisdiction; Logan v. United States, 144 U. S. 308, 36 L. 445, 12 S. Ct. 632, granting new trial, where list of witnesses was not furnished, under R. S., § 1033; Ex parte M'Clusky, 40 Fed. 72, 73, 74, reviewing authorities, holding person accused of larceny must be prosecuted by indictment; In re Taylor, 7 S. Dak. 388, 58 Am. St. Rep. 849, 64 N. W. 256, 45 L. R. A. 148, and n., remanding prisoner, where term fixed was greater than court had right to impose.

114 U. S. 429-430, 29 L. 93, UNITED STATES v. PETIT.

Indictment and information.- Offense of counterfeiting, punishable under R. S., § 5457, is an infamous crime, requiring prosecution by indictment, p. 430.

See note to Ex parte Wilson, supra.

114 U. S. 430-439, 29 L. 144, DODGE v. KNOWLES.

Appeal and error.- - On equity appeal, both law and fact are reviewable by Supreme Court, p. 434.

Husband and wife.- Obligation to pay for family supplies is, ordinarily, debt of husband; promissory notes given by him for wife, though describing him as her trustee, bind him personally and not her estate, unless his authority to give them on her behalf is clearly proved. In this case authority was not shown, pp. 435, 436.

Approved in Chaffee v. Browne, 109 Cal. 220, 41 Pac. 1031, holding insolvency of husband did not affect rule as to charging wife's separate estate.

Appeal and error.- Jurisdiction of Supreme Court, being comon the record, appellee's objection that required amount was olved comes too late, p. 437.

Appeal and error.— Judicial allowance of appeal at term in which be was rendered, constitutes valid appeal; docketing cause in the perfects jurisdiction of Supreme Court; bond is essential to

tion, but not to taking of appeal, and when not furnished e docketing of cause, appeal will not be dismissed until apis given opportunity to supply omission, p. 438.

ed in The Natchez, 27 Fed. 310, refusing to dismiss appeal defect in bond; Noonan v. Chester Park, etc., Club Co., 93 Fed. refusing to dismiss appeal where bond was not filed within ths after decree.

Appeal and error.- Judicial allowance of appeal in open court turing term is sufficient notice of taking appeal; security is only the prosecution of appeal; purpose of citation, where security sen out of court or after term, is notice only; it is not jurisdic, and if, by accident, omitted, motion to dismiss appeal so ald will not be granted until opportunity to give requisite notice has been furnished, p. 438.

Approved in Richardson v. Green, 130 U. S. 114, 32 L. 875, 9 S. 44, directing issuance and service of citation, where security taken after term; Farmers' Loan, etc., Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. 3.3 Fed. 317, 34 U. S. App. 626, refusing to dismiss, where citathe was not signed by judge granting appeal; Central Trust Co. v. Cinental Trust Co., 86 Fed. 524, holding no citation necessary ire appeal taken and perfected during term; Noonan v. Chester Pert, etc., Club Co., 93 Fed. 577, refusing to dismiss, where citation is not issued within six months of decree.

Distinguished in Hewitt v. Filbert, 116 U. S. 144, 29 L. 582, 6 S. ~, dismissing appeal for want of citation, where appeal was Lowed after term.

Appeal and error.- Notice by order of Supreme Court, served on -e, that appeal taken in open court was being prosecuted and ment was desired, is equivalent of citation, p. 439.

Approved in Goodwin v. Fox, 120 U. S. 778, 30 L. 816, 7 S. Ct. 780, There counsel's Indorsement of approval of bond was equivalent toritation

348439-447, 29 L. 177, DOBSON v. HARTFORD CARPET CO. Paints. — In infringement suit, plaintiff may recover, in addition 'a, actual damages sustained, assessed by court, or under its on, and with same power to increase damages as in case of **: ‘■ p. 443.

Patents — In suit for infringement of design for carpets, allowof entire profits from manufacture and sale of carpets, as

damages or profits, is not proper, unless shown by reliable evidence that entire profit is due to figure or patent, p. 444.

Patentee must, in infringement suit, give reliable and tangible evidence apportioning defendant's profits and patentee's damages between patented and unpatented features; or he must show that profits and damages are to be calculated on whole machine, because its value is properly and legally attributable to patented feature, p. 445.

Approved in Dobson v. Dornan, 118 U. S. 16, 17, 30 L. 65, 6 S. Ct. 949, holding award of entire profits from manufacture and sale of carpets, erroneous; Tilghman v. Proctor, 125 U. S. 151, 31 L. 669, 8 S. Ct. 902, sustaining master's calculation of profits upon saving in manufacture; Fay v. Allen, 24 Blatchf. 276, 30 Fed. 447, refusing to allow profits from sale and manufacture, where invention was of improvement; Roemer v. Simon, 24 Blatchf. 397, 31 Fed. 42, nominal damages allowed for infringement of locks to travelling-bags; Everest v. Buffalo, etc., Oil Co., 24 Blatchf. 465, 31 Fed. 744, 745. proof of higher price paid for oil tested by infringed method did not justify more than nominal damages; Bostock v. Goodrich, 25 Fed. 819, nominal damages allowed for infringement of improvements in "tuck-markers; " Tuttle v. Gaylord, 28 Fed. 97, infringement of improvement in harrow teeth; Reed v. Lawrence, 29 Fed. 918, 920, 921, holding patentee of improved harrow teeth entitled only to proportion of profits on sale of harrows; Bell v. United States Stamping Co., 32 Fed. 551, evidence of sales to persons not customers of licensee not proof that sales were lost to him; Tomkinson v. Willets Mfg. Co., 34 Fed. 537, patentee entitled only to proportionate profits for infringement of design for dish; Fischer v. Hayes, 39 Fed. 613, nominal damages, when, on evidence, the profits could not be computed; Webster Loom Co. v. Higgins, 43 Fed. 675, awarding difference in cost of producing carpet on infringing and noninfringing loom; Royer v. Shultz Belting Co., 45 Fed. 53, refusing to presume that patentee's damages equalled infringer's gains; Mosher v. Joyce, 51 Fed. 445, 6 U. S. App. 107, nominal damages for infringement of improvement of lifting-jack, being no evidence to segregate; Hunt Bros. Fruit, etc., Co. v. Cassidy, 53 Fed. 261, 7 U. S. App. 424, when refusal to instruct for nominal damages was erroneous; Untermeyer v. Freund, 50 Fed. 78, and Untermeyer v. Freund, 58 Fed. 211, 20 U. S. App. 32, both sustaining, as constitutional, act of 1887, creating liability of $250 against infringer of design patent.

Distinguished in Warren v. Keep, 155 U. S. 268, 39 L. 145, 15 S. Ct. 84, Welling v. La Bau, 34 Fed. 43, and Creamer v. Bowers, 35 Fed. 208, allowing entire profits from manufacture and sale, where invention was new article of manufacture sold separately; Avery v. Meikle, 85 Ky. 450, 7 Am. St. Rep. 611, 3 S. W. 613, allowing profits on sales in case of imitation of trademark.