etc. S. S. Co. v. Louisiana Board of Health, 118 U. S. 462, 30 L. Ed. 241, 6 Sup. Ct. 1118, holding fees imposed on vessels by State quarantine laws valid (affirming 36 La. Ann. 669).

12 Wall. 226-232, 20 L. Ed. 385, JUNCTION R. R. CO. v. BANK OF ASHLAND.

Determination whether contract is or is not usurious depends on law of place where the money is made payable, but parties may stipulate in accordance with law of place where contract is made.

Approved in Bedford v. Eastern Bldg. & Loan Assn. of Syracuse, 181 U. S. 243, 45 L. Ed. 845, 21 Sup. Ct. 602, holding contract not usurious where corporation domiciled, not usurious where mortgaged land situated; Ringer v. Virgin Timber Co., 213 Fed. 1014, notes executed in Arkansas but payable in Illinois where lender resided and had his business, were governed by law of State of performance; Washington Nat. Bldg. etc. Assn. v. Pifer, 31 App. D. C. 437, building and loan association contracts, in absence of stipulation to the contrary, are to be governed by law of place of performance; Shannon v. Georgia State Bldg. etc. Assn., 78 Miss. 975, 30 South. 55, holding contract usurious, notes and mortgages made payable in foreign State with intent to evade State laws; Seiders v. Merchants' etc. Assn., 93 Tex. 199, 54 S. W. 754, holding policy payable in Missouri governed by laws thereof as to misrepresentations in application; Dygert v. Vermont Loan & Trust Co., 94 Fed. 914, 37 C. C. A. 389, holding note not usurious where payable. valid; Commissioners of Craven v. Atlantic etc. R. R. Co., 77 N. C. 294, enjoining payment on usurious railroad bonds; Atkinson v. Allen, 71 Fed. 59, 17 C. C. A. 570, arguendo.

Enforcement of contracts outside of jurisdiction where made. Note, 55 Am. St. Rep. 778.

By New York law of 1850, no corporation can interpose defense of usury.

Approved in Binghampton Trust Co. v. Auten, 68 Ark. 307, 57 S. W. 1107, denying corporation defense of usury, laws of New York prohibiting defense, while laws of Arkansas permit interest complained of; Hubbard v. Tod, 171 U. S. 501, 43 L. Ed. 258, 19 Sup. Ct. 24, applying rule in determining title to railroad bonds in bankruptcy proceedings; Commissioners, etc. v. Atlantic etc. R. R. Co., 77 N. C. 294, holding rule not applicable to North Carolina corporation sued in North Carolina on bonds delivered and payable in New York.

Statutes prohibiting corporations from pleading usury as defense.
Note, 14 Ann. Cas. 117.

Federal courts take judicial notice of laws of every State.

Approved in United States S. & L. Co. v. Harris, 113 Fed. 31, holding contract governed by laws of Minnesota, borrower residing and property situated in Kentucky; M'Ilwaine v. Ellington, 111 Fed. 584, 55 L. R. A. 933, 49 C. C. A. 446, solving contract under laws of domicile, security situated in another State; Hanley v. Donoghue, 116 U. S. 6, 29 L. Ed. 537, 6 Sup. Ct. 245, applying rule in action in one State to enforce a judgment procured in another; Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. Wyler, 158 U. S. 296, 39 L. Ed. 990, 15 Sup. Ct. 882, applying rule in action for injury to railroad employee; Swann v. Swann, 21 Fed. 300, enforcing promissory note made on Sunday, valid by law of State where made; Cluck v. The State, 40 Ind. 273, arguendo.

Judicial notice of laws. Note, 11 Am. Dec. 782.

Judicial notice. Note, 89 Am. Dec. 676.

Proof and evidence of foreign laws and their effect. Note, 113 Am.
St. Rep. 874.

Statute authorizing railroads to sell their bonds or notes at rates and prices in the discretion of the directors is tantamount to repeal of the usury laws as to such companies.

Approved in Metropolitan Trust Co. v. Railroad Equipment Co., 108 Fed. 916, 48 C. C. A. 135, holding corporation exempt from usury laws, directors allowed to negotiate bonds at not less than seventy-five per cent of par; Metropolitan Trust Co. v. Columbus etc. R. R. Co., 93 Fed. 704, applying rule in construing contract for purchase of railroad equipment.

What transactions are usurious. Note, 46 Am. St. Rep. 202.

Issuance of corporate bonds below par as usury. Note, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1106.

Question whether negotiation of bonds was sale or loan is ordinarily one of fact; but it is a question of law if some fact is admitted or proved which is irreconcilable with one conclusion or the other.

Approved in Stirling v. Gogebic Lumber Co., 165 Mich. 501, 502, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1106, 131 N. W. 111, transaction whereby one company issued its bonds to another in consideration of certain money, was a loan and not a sale.

Negotiation of bonds by railroad where payment is guaranteed by third parties is sale and not loan.

Approved in Weed v. Gainesville etc. R. R. Co., 119 Ga. 591, 46 S. E. 894, defense of usury is not good as against bona fide purchaser of corporate bonds.

12 Wall, 232-246, 20 L. Ed. 360, UNITED STATES v. CHILD.

Where claimants present their claims to a special commission which does not allow the full amount, but claimants receive the reduced amount and give a receipt in full therefor, without objection, they cannot recover the difference.

Approved in Chicago, Milwaukee etc. Ry. Co. v. Clark, 178 U. S. 369, 44 L. Ed. 1107, 20 Sup. Ct. 930, holding payment of specified sum extinguished entire debt, aggregate amount in dispute; Leonard v. Hallett, 57 Colo. 278, 141 Pac. 482, granting of extension for purchase of land was sufficient consideration for agreement to receive one-half of original amount; La Plata County v. Morgan, 28 Colo. 324, 65 Pac. 41, holding claimant estopped to sue for balance, accepting warrants indorsed thereon, amount allowed in full; Greenlee v. Mosnat, 116 Iowa, 540, 90 N. W. 340, holding in action to recover money from attorney defense that client accepted certain amount in full satisfaction should have gone to jury; County Commrs. v. Seawell, 3 Okl. 287, 41 Pac. 594, applying rule to claim against county; Franklin Ins. Co. v. Villeneuve, 25 Tex. Civ. 360, 60 S. W. 1016, holding unless contention, policy void, was made in good faith, payment of less sum than claimed, as total release, should have gone to jury; United States v. Clyde, 13 Wall. 37, 20 L. Ed. 480, Mason v. United States, 17 Wall. 73, 21 L. Ed. 566, Sisson v. Baltimore, 51 Md. 98, and Board of County Commrs. of Cleveland County v. Seawell, 3 Okl. 287, 41 Pac. 594, all following rule; United States v. Justice, 14 Wall. 550, 20 L. Ed. 756, refusing recovery, although no receipt in full was given; Savage v. United States, 92 U. S. 388, 23 L. Ed. 662, refusing recovery to one who surrendered United States treasury notes for depreciated legal-tender notes; United States v. Martin, 94 U. S. 404, 24 L. Ed. 129, refusing recovery to laborer who has accepted allowance for work in excess of eight hours a day; Pray v. United States, 106 U. S. 595, 27 L. Ed. 265, 1 Sup. Ct. 484, refusing recovery to occasional weigher of customs, after receipt of regular compensation; De Arnaud v. United States, 151 U. S. 494, 38 L. Ed. 248, 14 Sup. Ct. 378, refusing recovery on claim, after acceptance of money as payment in full; Pacific R. R. v. United States, 158 U. S. 122, 39 L. Ed. 919, 15 Sup. Ct. 767, refusing recovery of interest on judgment after acceptance of appropriation as payment in full; United States v. Galinger, 169 U. S. 322, 42 L. Ed. 764, 18 Sup. Ct. 366, holding payment presumed to be in full, and refusing recovery for extra services to night customs inspector. Distinguished in Piatt v. United States, 22 Wall. 509, 22 L. Ed. 862, allowing recovery on reduced claim where payment was not in full. Accord and satisfaction. Note, 100 Am. St. Rep. 431.

Part payment as satisfaction of claim against government, State, county or municipality. Note, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 828, 829.

Part payment as satisfaction of disputed claim. Note, 1 Ann. Cas. 801.

Accord and satisfaction by part payment. Note, 20 L. R. A. 795, 798, 805.

Acceptance of partial allowance of claim by public body as accord

and satisfaction. Note, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 113.

There is no duress in the compromise of a controverted claim, and in the absence of fraud or constraint on the part of the government, it is valid.

Approved in Manigault v. S. M. Ward etc. Co., 123 Fed. 719, holding contract to remove dam erected across stream without legislative authority valid, no threat made except legal proceedings instituted; Earle v. Berry, 27 R. I. 231, 8 Ann. Cas. 875, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 867, 61 Atl. 675, where amount due was in dispute, acceptance of amount specified was binding as compromise in, absence of duress; Mason v. United States, 17 Wall. 74, 21 L. Ed. 566, refusing recovery after settlement of claim by government commission; Boffinger v. Tuyes, 120 U. S. 205, 30 L. Ed. 652, 7 Sup. Ct. 533, refusing recovery against sureties on appeal bond after settlement under a compromise; The Cayuga, 59 Fed. 486, 8 C. C. A. 188, holding compromise of claim arising out of collision of vessels, valid; Springfield etc. R. R. Co. v. Allen, 46 Ark. 221, holding settlement and receipt in full of unliquidated demand a bar to subsequent action; Bull v. Bull, 43 Conn. 469, holding compromise a valid accord and satisfaction; Tanner v. Merrill, 108 Mich. 62, 62 Am. St. Rep. 690, 31 L. R. A. 173, 65 N. W. 665, refusing recovery to laborers after settlement and receipt in full; Treat v. Price, 47 Neb. 883, 66 N. W. 836, holding creditor bound by receipt in full given for payment of disputed debt; United States v. Old Settlers, 148 U. S. 473, 37 L. Ed. 526, 13 Sup. Ct. 669, determining Indian claims under treaty; Tucker v. State, 72 Ind. 245, holding sureties cannot plead duress of principal, and awarding damages against trustee and sureties for loss of funds.

Distinguished in Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Clark, 92 Fed. 977, 35 C. C. A. 120, holding payment of liquidated debt not sufficient consideration for release by creditor of other unliquidated claims.

Demand for receipt in full as condition of payment of part of debt
as duress avoiding receipt. Note, 8 Ann. Cas. 880.

Duress by demanding receipt as condition of payment. Note, 1
L. R. N. (N. S.) 868.

12 Wall. 246–254, 20 L. Ed. 388, UNITED STATES v. BURNS.

Government cannot make use of a patented improvement any more than a private individual, without license of the inventor or making him compensation.

VII-26

Approved in Dickerson v. Sheldon, 98 Fed. 622, 39 C. C. A. 191, holding purchaser of infringing article from United States without right to vend same without patentee's permission; dissenting opinion in International Postal Supply Co. v. Bruce, 194 U. S. 608, 48 L. Ed. 1138, 24 Sup. Ct. 820, majority holding patentee of improvements in stampcanceling machine cannot enjoin postmaster from using infringing machine of which government is lessee; Cammeyer v. Newton, 94 U. S. 235, 24 L. Ed. 75, holding patent for improved dam not infringed herein; Fletcher y. Blake, 131 U. S. excvii (Appx.), 26 L. Ed. 156, holding internal revenue stamps used by defendant no infringement of plaintiff's patent; Belknap v. Schild, 161 U. S. 16, 40 L. Ed. 601, 16 Sup. Ct. 444, awarding damages against United States for unauthorized use of patented caisson gates; Brady v. Atlantic Works, 4 Cliff. 416, Fed. Cas. 1794, awarding damages for infringement of patented dredging-boat, although built under contract with government; Campbell v. James, 17 Blatchf. 54, Fed. Cas. 2361, holding postmaster liable for infringement of patented canceling stamps; Colgate v. International Ocean Tel. Co., 17 Blatchf. 311, Fed. Cas. 2993, enjoining unlicensed use of invention by party having exclusive right to operate telegraph cable; Head v. Porter, 48 Fed. 487, holding United States officer in charge of armory liable for infringement of patent, although acting under orders of government.

Distinguished in Sheriff v. Turner, 119 Fed. 784, refusing to enjoin army officer, acting under Secretary of War, from constructing sewer, on ground construction depreciating value of adjoining land; International Postal Supply Co. v. Bruce, 114 Fed. 512, sustaining plea to jurisdiction in action for infringement against employee, use of patent prescribed by postoffice department.

Where United States contracted for privilege of making patented tents with army officer who assigned half his interest, and subsequently joined Confederate army, assignee can recover his own moiety from the United States.

Approved in Belknap v. Schild, 161 U. S. 17, 40 L. Ed. 601, 16 Sup. Ct. 445, awarding damages against United States for unauthorized use of patented caisson gates.

Remedy against government or its agents for infringement of patent rights. Note, 15 Ann. Cas. 1109.

Court of Claims in deciding upon rights of claimants, is not bound by any special rules of pleading.

Approved in District of Columbia v. Barnes, 197 U. S. 154, 49 L. Ed. 702, 25 Sup. Ct. 401, following rule; District of Columbia v. Talty, 182

U. S. 513, 45 L. Ed. 1209, 21 Sup. Ct. 898, allowing filing of amended