INFRINGEMENT-continued.

2. SAME-SAME-SAME.- In the exercise of such discretion the court should look carefully to all the facts and circumstances involved, regarding the difference between royalties, licenses and patent monopolies. ld.

case.

3. MOTION OVERRULED.— Motion to suspend the interlocutory decree for a perpetual injunction overruled under the circumstances of this Id. 4. INFRINGEMENT OF PATENT - FORFEITURE OF LICENSE.— Where the owner of a patent licenses any one to manufacture and sell the patented article, and the license is upon express condition that it shall become void upon failure on the part of the licensee to pay a specified royalty to the licensor, and it is agreed that after breach of condition by the licensee he may be treated as an infringer of the patent if he continues to manufacture or sell the patented article, held, that the licensee cannot be treated by the licensor as an infringer, and sued as such in a court of equity, for continuing to manufacture and sell the patented article after breach of condition, and notice to him from the licensor that he claims a forfeiture of the license. Adams v. Meyrose, 360

5. SAME REMEDIES.- Under circumstances such as are above set forth, the owner of the patent may bring his action at law and establish his royalty and recover what is due, or file a bill in chancery and have the license annulled. Hartell v. Tilghman, 99 U. S. 547.

Id.

INJUNCTION. See Equity, 1, 2, 3. Bridge, 1. Practice, 1, 2, 3. Bankruptcy, 2, 3. Contempt, 2. Decree, 4, 5.

1. INJUNCTION - ATTEMPT TO TAKE PERMANENT POSSESSION OF LAND FOR PUBLIC USE-IRREPARABLE INJURY.-An attempt to take permanent possession of land for public use, without the assent of the owner, express or implied, and without payment or tender of damages in advance, would, if consummated, be in the nature of an irreparable injury, to prevent which an injunction would ordinarily be granted. Held, in this case, that the equities of the bill were not fully denied by the answer, and a motion to dissolve the injunction could not therefore prevail. Northern Pacific Railroad Company v. Burlington & Missouri Railroad Company and others, 203

2. INJUNCTION BOND-ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES.-An injunction bond conditioned to "abide the decision" of the suit and "pay all sums of money, damages and costs that shall be adjudged" against the obligors if the injunction shall be dissolved, does not cover the amount of a judgment enjoined by the court nor the costs and attorney's fees therein.

Id. 3. SAME-SAME-SUIT AT LAW.-The question whether a court of chancery on dissolving an injunction will itself proceed to assess damages resulting therefrom, or drive the defendant to a suit at law on the

INJUNCTION - continued.

injunction bond, discussed but not decided. Browning et al. v. Por-
ter et al.

581

4. INJUNCTION-NUISANCE-NAVIGABLE RIVER.- A court of equity
will not enjoin the erection of a runway for logs, upon the ground
that it will divert the course of a navigable river, unless it appears
that the threatened structure will be a nuisance per se. City of St.
Louis v. The Knapp, Stout & Co. Company,
516
5. NUISANCE-RIVER.-A structure in the channel of a river will not
necessarily be held subject to abatement as a nuisance. Pennsylvania
v. Wheeling Bridge Co. 13 How. 518.

6. INJUNCTION

-

-

Id.

- NUISANCE-PARTY TO BILL. It seems to be well
settled that a bill in equity to enjoin or abate a public nuisance must
be filed by one who has sustained, or is in danger of sustaining, special
damages.
Id.
7. INJUNCTION-INTERFERENCE WITH CONTROL OF PROPERTY IN
POSSESSION OF STATE COURT.- No injunction will be granted by a
United States court to interfere with the possession, control or disposi-
tion of property which is in the hands of a state court of co-ordinate
jurisdiction. Hutchison and others v. Green and others,
471
8. Receiver — POSSESSION OF STATE COURT.- The possession of a re-
ceiver appointed by a state court, and acting under its orders, is the
possession of the court itself, and the disposition of the property by
the receiver is a matter to be ordered by the state court, and will not
be interfered with by a United States court by injunction.
Id.
9. SAME-FRAUDULENT ASSIGNMENT - INJUNCTION.- Where a state
court has appointed a receiver of the property of a corporation, and
a fraudulent assignment has been subsequently made of the same, a
United States court will not enjoin the assignee from receiving such
corporate property from the receiver, in case the state court having
control thereof orders it to be turned over to him.

INJURY. See Injunction, 1. Pleadings, 1, 2, 3. Negligence, 20.
INNOCENT PURCHASERS. See Bonds, 16, 17.

INSURANCE. See Ultra Vires, 1.

Id.

1. FIRE INSURANCE · - ACTION ON POLICY - EVIDENCE.- In an action
upon an insurance policy the plaintiff is bound, in the absence of any
admission by the defendant, to establish, by a preponderance of the
evidence, (1) the execution of the policy; (2) the total or partial de-
struction of the insured property; (3) the amount of the less or value
of the insured property destroyed; (4) and such notice and prelimi-
nary proof of loss as the policy requires. Mack & Co. v. Lancashire
Ins. Co. and others,
211

2. SAME "ACTUAL CASH VALUE."-In such case the term "actual
ca-h value" means the sum of money the insured goods would have

INSURANCE-continued.

brought for cash, at the market price, at the time when, and place where they were destroyed.

Id. 3. SAME-FRAUDULENT CLAIM.-In order to establish the fact of a fraudulent claim, it must appear (1) that there was a false statement in the preliminary proof as to the value of the goods destroyed, and (2) that such false statement was made with knowledge that it was false, and with the intent to defraud the defendant by deceiving him as to the value of the goods. Id. 4. SAME-SAME.-The mere fact that the loss is less than that stated in the preliminary proof would not be sufficient to establish fraud, though if the discrepancy between the true value and that stated by the insured is large, it would be some evidence bearing upon the issue of fraud. Id. 5. SAME ARSON - EVIDENCE.- In a civil case the fact of arson need not be established beyond all reasonable doubt, but it must nevertheless be established by a clear preponderance of all the evidence adduced. ld. 6. SAME-VEXATIOUS DELAY-DAMAGES - EVIDENCE.- In order to recover damages for vexatious delay in the payment of a policy, it must be shown that there was no reasonable ground for contesting either the validity or the amount of the claim. Id. 7. INSURANCE-LOAN USURY.- Where a contract for the loan of money and an agreement for insurance upon the life of the borrower are blended together in one and the same transaction, and the proof shows that the policy of insurance was taken and the premium paid in advance in consideration of the loan, the transaction is usurious if independently of the insurance transaction the maximum rate of interest is contracted for. National Life Insurance Company v. Harvey, 574

8. INSURANCE-DUTY OF INSURED TO DISCLOSE HIS INTEREST-POLICY CONSTRUED.- Where an insurance policy provided that if the interest of the assured was less than the absolute title, "it must be so represented to the insurer and expressed in the written part of the policy," held, that it was the duty of the applicant for insurance, who held only a lien upon the property in the nature of a mortgage, to disclose the nature of his interest without being questioned, especially in a case where he appeared of record as the sole owner. Waller v. Northern Assurance Company,

637 9. SAME-SAME-SAME.-It is the duty of the assured to state everything which might influence, and probably would influence, the company in accepting or declining the risk, and the nature and extent of the interest of the assured is material to the risk. Id.

10. SAME-DUTY OF COMPANY TO INQUIRE - WAIVER.- Where the policy required a disclosure on the part of the insured, and did not require the insurer to make inquiry, or to request information, a waiver

INSURANCE - continued.

of this condition of the policy cannot be presumed from the mere fact that the assured was not requested to make disclosure, and no inquiry was made upon the subject.

INTENT. See Fraud, 4.

INTEREST. See Insurance, 7.

Id.

1. INTEREST-WHEN ALLOWED-FUND IN COURT.-Interest is allowed upon the ground that the debtor is in default and has the use of claimant's money. It is not, as a rule, allowed where payment has been prevented or suspended by the order of a court of competent jurisdiction to await settlement of controversy among several claimants. Bowman v. Wilson, Assignee,

INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT. See Election Precinct, 1.

INTERROGATORIES. See Garnishment, 1. Intervenor, 8.

INTERVENOR. See Removal, 8, 9.

INTIMIDATION. See Mining Claim, 3.

INVENTION.

1. INVENTION

394

ROTATORY SEED-WHEEL.-The substitution of an intermittent rotatory seed-wheel for an oscillatory seed-wheel, with the addition of the devices necessary to effect such rotatory motion, constitutes a valid and important improvement. Brown v. Deere, Mansur & Co. and others,

2. SAME

422

DIVISION INTO DISTINCT CLAIMS.-The supreme court having held divisional patents valid, there can be no legal objection to subdividing an invention into distinct claims.

IRREPARABLE INJURY. See Injunction, 1.

JOINDER OF PARTIES PLAINTIFF. See Mining Claim, 12.

JOINT PURCHASER. See Agreement.

Id.

JUDGMENT. See Estoppel, 1, 2, 3. Practice, 2. Election Precinct, 2. Jurisdiction, 5. Removal, 16. Bill of Review, 2.

1. JUDGMENT-LIEN-BANKRUPTCY.- The plaintiff in a judgment in a state court which constitutes a lien on the land of the defendant is not deprived of his lien by a failure to prove his judgment in bankruptcy, in case the defendant is adjudged bankrupt after the rendition of the judgment. Cottrell v. Pierson, Sheriff, and others,

390

2. JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE UNITED STATES-PRIORITY.-The priority given to the United States under certain sections of the Revised Statutes of the United States does not overrule any liens upon the debtor's property which existed before the event occurred which gives the statutory priority; that is, before the' insolvency of the debtor.

ld.

JUNIOR DISCOVERY. See Mining Claim, 16.

JURISDICTION.

-

Corporation, 1, 3, 7.
Banks, 2. Receiver, 1.

Bill of

Com-

See Removal, 1, 13, 14.
Review, 2. Practice, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.
missioners, 6, 8, 9.
1. JURISDICTION COURT MARTIAL.-The jurisdiction of a general
court martial may always, upon the application of any party aggrieved
by its judgment, be inquired into by the civil courts. Courts martial
are special tribunals, with jurisdiction limited to a particular class of
cases, and if such a court exceeds its authority, its judgment is void.
and may be so declared by any court having jurisdiction of the proper
parties and of the subject matter. Barrett v. Hopkins,
129
2. SAME-SAME HABEAS CORPUS.- A circuit court of the United
States has jurisdiction to issue the writ of habeas corpus to bring up
the body of a person imprisoned by the judgment of a court martial,
and who alleges that such court has transcended its powers, and to
discharge the prisoner if that allegation is found to be true.

Id.

3. SOLDIER-TRIAL AFTER EXPIRATION OF TERM OF ENLISTMENT.—
Where jurisdiction of a court martial has attached, in a particular
case, by the commencement of proceedings and the arrest of the ac-
cused, it will continue for all the purposes of the trial, judgment and
execution. This rule applied to the case of a soldier in the army of
the United States, who was arrested for a military offense before the
expiration of his term of enlistment, and tried after such term had
expired.
1d.

4. JURISDICTION CREDITORS' BILL.- A federal court may entertain
jurisdiction of a creditors' bill, although the parties to the suit may be
compelled to testify under an act of congress. Frazer & Chalmers v.
Colorado Dressing & Smelting Co. and others,

11
5. SAME-SAME.- Such court may entertain jurisdiction of such bill al-
though the code of the state gives special proceedings, having in view
the same purpose, to reach any property of the judgment debtor, and
subject it to execution under the judgment.

· 1d.
6. CONFLICT OF JURISDICTION-REPLEVIN-SERVICE OF WRIT.-
By the service of a writ of replevin, the court from which the writ is-
sues obtains possession and control of the property replevied for all
the purposes of jurisdiction in the replevin suit, and no other court of
concurrent jurisdiction can subsequently interfere with such posses-
sion. The same property cannot be subject to two jurisdictions at the
same time, and the first levy, whether made under state or federal au-
thority, withdraws the property from the reach of the process of the
other. The Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society v. Hinman
et al.
7. SAME

543

PROPERTY CLAIMED AS A TRUST FOR CHARITABLE USES.-
The rule above stated applies, notwithstanding one of the parties
may claim the property for the purposes of a public charity only. The