demurrer to bill where inventions were not embodied in infringing machine; Kansas City Hay Press Co. v. Devol, 81 Fed. 732, 26 C. C. A. 578, where similar bill was held not to be multifarious; Wilkins Shoe Button Fastener Co. v. Webb, 89 Fed. 990, holding separate machines may be included in same patent; arguendo, in dissenting opinion in Sewall v. Jones, 91 U. S. 190, 23 L. Ed. 279 (reversing 3 Cliff. 574, Fed. Cas. 7495), majority holding patent for preserved green corn void.

The Palmer, Williams and Seymour patents for improvements in reapers examined, held valid, and held to be infringed by respondent's machines. Approved in Marsh v. Seymour, 97 U. S. 359, 24 L. Ed. 966, reaffirmed as to Seymour's platform and sweep-rake.

Right to injunction or damages in an action for infringement of patent. Note, 20 E. R. C. 859.

Miscellaneous. Cited in Gear v. Fairmount Electric & Mfg. Co., 231 Fed. 731, construing Williams patent for connector for electrical conductors; Kirchberger v. American etc. Burner Co., 128 Fed. 605, 64 C. C. A. 107, upholding Dolan patent for process of burning acetylene gas surrounding jet with envelope of air in chamber, preventing combustion in contact with burner; Washburn & Moen Mfg. Co. v. Fuchs, 5 McCrary, 245, 16 Fed. 668, erroneously.

11 Wall. 560-566, 20 L. Ed. 214, HALLIDAY v. HAMILTON.

Bill of lading for consignment of goods having been taken in name of consignee and, with draft attached, transmitted to him, under agreement that goods shall be sold, proceeds to be applied first to pay the draft and surplus on previous advances, legal title to goods passed to consignee on delivery to carrier.

Approved in Easton v. Geo. Wostenholm & Son, 137 Fed. 532, 70 C. C. A. 108, where firm employed complainant to buy goods in England, he to advance money, title to goods passed on delivery to carrier, irrespective of time of delivery of bill of lading; Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Metropolitan Str. Ry. Co., 157 U. S. 109, 39 L. Ed. 638, 15. Sup. Ct. 507, where title to cars built for defendant passed on delivery to carrier; The L. J. Farwell, 8 Biss. 71, Fed. Cas. 8426, where, consignees having received bills and paid drafts, title vested on delivery to carrier; The Steamship Idaho, 5 Ben. 282, Fed. Cas. 6997, where holder of bill of lading, having made advances on it, became owner upon delivery to carrier; Richardson v. Hutchinson, 20 Fla. 24, holding that introduction of bill in evidence raised presumption that holder owned goods; Wetzel v. Power, 5 Mont. 219, 222, 2 Pac. 341, 343, holding, under facts similar to principal case, consignee alone could sue for trespass to goods; First Nat. Bank v. McAndrews, 7 Mont. 161, 14 Pac. 768, where,

under circumstances, title passed on delivery to carrier, though there was no bill of lading; Neimeyer Lumber Co. v. Burlington etc. R. R. Co., 54 Neb. 334, 40 L. R. A. 540, 74 N. W. 674, holding delivery to carrier delivery to vendee, under the contract; dissenting opinion in Chaffe v. Heyner, 31 La. Ann. 613, 621, majority holding crop mortgage void, under the circumstances.

Distinguished in The John K. Shaw, 32 Fed. 495, where vendors having reserved and exercised their jus disponendi, holder of antedated bill could not recover of carrier for nondelivery; Dickson v. Chaffe, 34 La. Ann. 1134, holding bailee of goods, who has accounted for them, not liable to adverse claimants, of whom he had not notice; First Nat. Bank v. McAndrews, 5 Mont. 331, 51 Am Rep. 55, 5 Pac. 882, where there was no bill of lading and title did not pass on delivery to carrier.

Note, 45 Am. St. Rep. 209.
Note, 35 Am. Dec. 616.

When consignment for sale vests title.
When title passes to consignee of goods.
Attaching draft to bill of lading as preventing title passing on
delivery of goods to carrier. Note, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1080.

Where goods are consigned to one, and bill of lading forwarded, under agreement that proceeds shall first be applied on draft drawn against consignment, surplus to be applied on pre-existing debts, the interest of consignor in surplus is not such that his creditor can attach the consignment in hands of carrier.

Approved in Wetzel v. Power, 5 Mont. 222, 2 Pac. 343, holding consignor's interest in such goods not such that he could sue for wrongful taking.

Bill of lading for consignment of goods, signed before delivery to carrier, becomes operative as soon as that delivery actually occurs.

Approved in Lovell v. Isidore Newman & Son, 192 Fed. 759, 113 C. C. A. 39, holding where by means of fraudulent bills of lading owner of cotton discounted drafts with consignee, latter's rights are prior to trustee in bankruptcy, seeking cotton not yet shipped; The Idaho, 93 U. S. 582, 23 L. Ed. 980 (affirming 11 Blatchf. 221, Fed. Cas. 6998), holding indorsee of bill entitled to such goods from time of delivery; The L. J. Farwell, 8 Biss. 65, Fed. Cas. 8426, where holders of bills so issued shared pro rata in subsequently delivered goods; The Steamship Idaho, 5 Ben. 282, Fed. Cas. 6997, where title to goods passed to holder of bill on delivery, though. they were subsequently removed; The Idaho, 11 Blatchf. 221, Fed. Cas. 6998 (affirming 5 Ben. 282, Fed. Cas. 6997), to same effect; Adone v. Sieligson & Co., 54 Tex. 604, 608, where bill of lading took effect from delivery to carrier of order for

VII-22

cotton in press; dissenting opinion in Chaffee v. Heyner, 31 La. Ann. 613, majority holding void a crop mortgage executed in Arkansas, the crop having been consigned to other creditors of mortgagor in Louisiana. Distinguished in the John K. Shaw, 32 Fed. 493, where, consignor's vendors having retained jus disponendi, holder of such bill took subject to their rights.

Delivery of goods to carrier for shipment as delivery to purchaser.
Note, 20 Ann. Cas. 1028.

Passing of title by delivery to carrier for transportation to con-
signee or vendee. Note, 22 L. R. A. 420.

Termination of right of stoppage in transitu. Note, 23 E. R. C. 432.

Miscellaneous. Cited in Millhiser etc. Co. Gallego Mills Co., 101 Va. 590, 44 S. E. 764, holding one taking warehouse receipt as collateral gets legal title to property represented thereby.

11 Wall. 566-581, 20 L. Ed. 56, STEINBACH v. STEWART,

All the several parts and ceremonies necessary to complete a conveyance are to be taken together as one act, and operate from the substantial part by relation.

Approved in Donnally v. Parker, 5 W. Va. 324, where purchaser's interest in land related back to date of contract to sell.

Decree of District Court, confirming Mexican grant in California, having expressly provided that it was without prejudice to, and should inure to benefit of, original grantee and those claiming under him, is left in full force by judgment of Supreme Court affirming said decree "so far as it confirmed the original grant."

Approved in Schmitt v. Giovanari, 43 Cal. 625, construing same decrees; Dunton v. McCook, 120 Iowa, 447, 94 N. W. 943, holding after affirmance by Supreme Court of decree of District Court without remanding, clerk of Supreme Court cannot revive cause by issuing procedendo.

Confirmation of Mexican land grant to petitioner inures to benefit of his

grantees.

Approved in McDonald v. McCoy, 121 Cal. 70, 53 Pac. 425, refusing to recognize, in action at law, rights under contract with original grantee, made before petition filed.

Distinguished in Bouldin v. Phelps, 12 Sawy. 316, 30 Fed. 562, where confirmation did not inure to benefit of one not claiming under or in privity with petitioner.

Construction manifestly given by the parties is an aid that may always be called in, when meaning of a contract is ambiguous.

Approved in Chicago etc. Ry. v. Northern Pac. Ry., 101 Fed. 795, 42 C. C. A. 25, holding items of expense acquiesced in for ten years included in contract; Scott v. Lafayette Gas Co., 42 Ind. App. 620, 86 N. E. 498, holding lease requiring lessee to drill well or pay well rental gave him option, but he could not avoid both; Clark v. New York Life Ins. Co., 101 S. C. 273, 85 S. E. 598, holding extension of time under insurance policy payable quarterly held to be one-fourth the time allowed on annual payments; Welling v. Eastern Bldg. etc. Assn., 56 S. C. 296, 34 S. E. 410, holding from construction placed upon contract by defendant shares matured at fixed and definite period; Staub v. Hampton, 117 Tenn. 739, 101 S. W. 784, holding where deed mistakenly describes land to be conveyed, intention of parties, and not description, governs; dissenting opinion in First Nat. Bank v. Henry, 159 Ala. 391, 49 South. 105, majority holding bank paying out fund in violation of trust regarding security for same rendered itself liable; dissenting opinion in Ex parte Felder, 61 S. C. 536, 39 S. E. 741, majority holding contract to be agreement by mortgagee to prorate with heirs of mortgagor; Knox County v. Ninth Nat. Bank, 147 U. S. 100, 37 L. Ed. 96, 13 Sup. Ct. 270, where tax levies, etc., were admitted to show intent of county in issuing bonds; Starr v. Stark, 2 Sawy. 625, Fed. Cas. 13,317, considering subsequent conduct of parties in construing compromise agreement; Hamm v. San Francisco, 9 Sawy. 47, 17 Fed. 124, considering the subsequent acquiescence of grantor in grantee's exercise. of ownership; Pratt v. California Mining Co., 9 Sawy. 359, 24 Fed. 872, where contemporaneous and subsequent action of parties in disposing of property were considered; Pond v. Minnesota Iron Co., 58 Fed. 451, where, after many years' acquiescence, party was not allowed to repudiate clause of deed; Brown v. Cranberry Iron etc. Co., 59 Fed. 437, where, in light of such construction, deed held to convey grantor's entire mineral interest; Metropolitan Nat. Bank v. Benedict Co., 74 Fed. 185, 20 C. C. A. 377, where interpretation put on contract by parties showed it to be bailment; Williamson v. Eastern Bldg. & Loan Assn., 54 S. C. 594, 32 S. E. 769, where certificate of stock and by-laws did not agree, and interpretation put on contract by parties prevailed.

Instrument executed in 1846, by one Vallejo, in favor of Hoeppener, examined and held, under all circumstances of the case, to be valid conveyance, under Mexican law, of all Vallejo's right to Agua Caliente rancho, Sonoma county, California.

'nent.

Approved in Schmitt v. Giovanari, 43 Cal. 624, involving same instru

Deed, indefinite in point of description, held admissible, when accompanied by proof of parol identification, followed by long possession unchallenged,

Approved in Watriss v. Reed, 99 Cal. 137, 33 Pac. 776, sustaining grantee's title to same land; Peacher v. Strauss, 47 Miss. 363, admitting parol evidence of county and State where deed was silent.

Statements of grantor of lands, made after he has conveyed to others, cannot be admitted to invalidate his deeds.

Approved in Ruckman v. Cory, 129 U. S. 390, 32 L. Ed. 730, 9 Sup. Ct. 318, holding incompetent, declarations, against interest of grantee, by grantor after conveyance.

Miscellaneous. Miscited in Caperton v. Bowyer, 14 Wall. 236, 20 L. Ed. 884.

11 Wall. 581-590, 20 L. Ed. 216, LUDLOW v. RAMSEY.

In collateral proceeding to set aside a judicial sale, mere errors and irregularities in original proceeding will not suffice; it must be shown that court had no jurisdiction.

Approved in Cowden v. Wild Goose Min. etc. Co., 199 Fed. 566, 118 C. C. A. 35, following rule; Heid v. Ebner, 133 Fed. 158, 66 C. C. A. 222, answer setting up title through execution sale, containing averments of judgment, execution and sale thereunder and confirmation, is good without setting out proceedings relative to execution and sale; Johnson v. Hunter, 127 Fed. 225, holding allegation in sworn complaint in proceeding to subject lands for delinquent taxes that owner was nonresident authorized service by publication; Hamilton v. Brown, 161 U. S. 274, 40 L. Ed. 699, 16 Sup. Ct. 591, holding valid certain escheat proceedings, based on publication of notice; Walker v. Sturbans, 38 Fed. 300, where court refused to declare void a judicial sale, the record being valid on its face; Bush v. Glover, 47 Ala. 174, holding judgment final, in collateral proceeding, where court had jurisdiction of subject matter and parties; Head v. Daniels, 38 Kan. 13, 15 Pac. 917, and De Camp v. Carnahan, 26 W. Va. 843, both arguendo.

Relief in equity, other than appellate proceedings, against judgments, decrees and other judicial determinations. Note, 54 Am. St. Rep. 231.

Though code requires affidavit for attachment to state that demand is just claim, an affidavit omitting that statement, but setting forth exact amount due and copy of note, will not vitiate subsequent proceedings.

Approved in Wilkins v. Tourtellott, 28 Kan. 833, holding that affidavit need only show demand to be just claim; Gutman & Co. v. Virginia Iron Co., 5 W. Va. 23, holding valid an affidavit in words "plaintiffs are justly entitled to recover'; Miller v. White, 46 W. Va. 47, 33 S. E. 333, where failure to say that claim is just did not render attachment, void; Crim v. Harmon, 38 W. Va. 601, 18 S. E. 755, holding