ness of judgment in an action at law for infringement; Overweight Counterbalance Elevator Co. v. Improved Order Red Men's Hall Assn., 94 Fed. 158, 36 C. C. A. 125, holding, in an action for infringing an elevator patent, that where a specific element is not claimed as a device by itself, it is in effect admitted as not the invention of the patentee. If machine will actually do more than inventor claims, and its structure and action would suggest to an ordinary skillful mechanic the double use, the adaptation is not a new invention or patentable. Approved in Fellows v. Borden's Condensed Milk Co., 180 Fed. 434, holding patent void for lack of invention, as mere adaptation of mechanic's art; Standard Caster etc. Co. v. Caster Socket Co., 113 Fed. 165, 51 C. C. A. 109, holding transfer of device from one art to another performing same function without change in form not patentable; Stow v. Chicago, 104 U. S. 550, 26 L. Ed. 817, as to a prior invention of wooden pavement; Fond du Lac Co. v. May, 137 U. S. 406, 34 L. Ed. 718, 11 Sup. Ct. 102, denying validity of a patent for improvement in construction of prisons, being merely an adaptation of old mechanism; Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Norwich Nat. Bank, 19 Blatchf. 130, 6 Fed. 385, affirming a patent for a safe-locking device, where a new result was produced and there was invention in the combination; Leonard v. Lovell, 29 Fed. 315, holding a refrigerator patent void for want of novelty; Rapid Service Store R. Co. v. Taylor, 43 Fed. 253, sustaining a patent for a cash and parcel carrier, with a spring starter, as not anticipated by prior English patents for atmospheric railways nor by loom patents; Appleton Mfg. Co. v. Star Mfg. Co., 60 Fed. 415, 9 C. C. A. 42, holding a patent corn reducer and separator, patented as a process, void for want of novelty; Galt v. Parlin & Orendorf Co., 60 Fed. 422, 9 C. C. A. 49, holding a patent for an improvement in wheelbarrows, void for want of novelty; Wright & Colton Wire Cloth Co. v. Clinton Wire Cloth Co., 67 Fed. 793, 14 C. C. A. 646, limiting a patent for improvement in weaving wire cloth to the new combination of prior means to the new purpose; Griswold v. Wagner, 68 Fed. 499, 15 C. C. A. 525, holding the transfer of hinging and journal devices found in coffee-roasters to waffle-irons, not patentable; Goshen Sweeper 'Co. v. Bissell Carpet Sweeper Co., 72 Fed. 75, 19 C. C. A. 13, disallowing an alleged improvement in carpet-sweepers, consisting merely in duplicating part of the mechanism; Schreiber & Sons. Co. v. Grimm, 72 Fed. 675, 19 C. C. A. 67, holding patent for a cask support, void for want of invention; Stearns & Co. v. Russell, 85 Fed. 228, 29 C. C. A. 121, holding a machine for pill dipping, not patentable; Union Gas-Engine Co. v. Doak, 88 Fed. 90, holding that the mere change in a gas-igniting device, from a rotary to a reciprocating movement, was not a patentable novelty; Eachus v. Broomall, 115 U. S. 436, 29 L. Ed. 422, 6 Sup. Ct. 232, arguendo. Modified in Potts v. Creager, 155 U. S. 607, 39 L. Ed. 279, 15 Sup. Ct. 198, holding that if the relations be remote, and use of old device produce a new result, it may be patentable. Right to patent for new combination of machines or processes. 13 Wall. 456–465, 20 L. Ed. 629, BUTLER v. WATKINS. To maintain action it is sufficient to show that defendant was guilty of deceit with design to deprive plaintiff of some profit or advantage, and acquire it for himself, whenever loss or damage has resulted. Approved in Rogers v. Virginia-Carolina etc. Co., 149 Fed. 19, 78 C. C. A. 615, upholding sufficiency of complaint in action for fraud in inducing contract for sale of options for purchase of phosphate lands; Fottler v. Moseley, 179 Mass. 298, 299, 60 N. E. 789, holding false representations of broker inducing stockholder to retain share of stock at a loss actionable; Adams v. Gillig, 199 N. Y. 322, 20 Ann. Cas. 910, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 127, 92 N. E. 673, holding where sale of lot was procured by false representation that purchaser would immediately erect dwelling thereon, but instead he erected garage, vendor was entitled to rescind; Guild v. More, 32 N. D. 453, 155 N. W. 49, holding under facts of case purchaser of interest in newspaper entitled to damages for deceit in procuring sale. Actual fraud is always attended by an intent to defraud which may be shown by any evidence tending thereto. Approved in Anderson v. Scott, 70 N. H. 535, 49 Atl. 568, holding evidence of similar representations made at same time to other persons, properly excluded, evidence immaterial on account of plaintiff's admissions; dissenting opinion in Brown v. Newell, 64 S. C. 69, 41 S. E. 850, majority holding that other transactions of similar nature admissible to show intent of defrauding. Corporation may be responsible for the fraudulent acts of its agent in inducing a contract, although it never assented to the proposals nor sanctioned the contract. Approved in Badders Clothing Co. v. Burnham-Munger-Root Dry Goods Co., 228 Fed. 473, holding that act of bankruptcy was ultra vires was in defense in bankruptcy proceeding against corporation; Stewart v. Wright, 147 Fed. 328, 77 C. C. A. 499, where bank knew that defendant was engaged in confidence game and represented him as man of credit to victims, and its officers drew drafts for victims, bank liable as party to scheme; Sherman v. Commercial Printing Co., 29 Mo. App. 38, holding a corporation cannot, by by-laws, avoid liability for torts of its servants within scope of their authority. If motive for fraudulent act can be shown in one case, it may be justly inferred that similar conduct toward another in relation to a like subject was actuated by the same spirit. Approved in Breese v. United States, 203 Fed. 829, 122 C. C. A. 142, holding in prosecution for conspiracy to embezzle bank funds evidence of acts not charged were admissible to show fraudulent intent; In re Friedman, 164 Fed. 139, holding on contest of claims in bankruptcy where shown bankrupt concealed insolvency to secure goods on credit without intention to pay, it could be shown claimants and bankrupt had been previously associated in similar frauds; Exchange Bank v. Moss, 149 Fed. 343, 79 C. C. A. 278, where petition in action for recovery of money obtained by conspiracy between bank and others to swindle strangers, alleged existence of conspiracy for long time, evidence of acts of bank's cashier with respect to similar transactions is admissible; Brooks v. United States, 146 Fed. 231, 76 C. C. A. 581, in trial for mailing certain letters with intent to defraud, other letters from defendant's company relating to company's transactions, admissible to show existence of fraudulent scheme; Olson v. United States, 133 Fed. 854, 67 C. C. A. 21, on indictment for conspiracy to defraud government by causing illegal entry of certain tract by certain person, evidence of inducement of entry by others of other tracts is admissible; McLaughlin v. Thomas, 86 Conn. 260, 85 Atl. 372, holding in action on instrument defended on ground of fraud evidence of similar representations to induce signing of similar instruments was admissible; McCauley v. Custer, 93 Kan. 32, 143 Pac. 490, applying rule in action to recover damages for sale of mining stock procured by fraud; Stouffer v. Alford, 114 Md. 119, 78 Atl. 391, holding acts of parties toward third persons admissible on question of fraud on procuring acceptance of draft; Yakima Valley Bank v. McAllister, 37 Wash. 574, 107 Am. St. Rep. 823, 79 Pac. 1122, where, in action on note, defendant alleges indorsement procured by trick, evidence of similar trick played on others is admissible even as against bona fide holder; New York Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Armstrong, 117 U. S. 599, 29 L. Ed. 1000, 6 Sup. Ct. 880, in action on policy on life of a third person, admitting evidence to show plaintiff obtained other insurances on same life about same time; Mack v. Jones, 31 Fed. 190, holding that statements by a merchant, made to obtain credit, are not to be held fraudulent because not agreeing precisely with his books; Continental Ins. Co. v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania, 51 Fed. 888, 2 C. C. A. 535, admitting evidence of commission of other and similar frauds about same time, on other insurance companies; Mudsill Min. Co. v. Watrous, 61 Fed. 180, 9 C. C. A. 415, admitting evidence of attempted sales of other mines on fraudulent samples of ore, in action to rescind mining contract; Pennsylvania Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Mechanics' Sav. Bank & T. Co., 72 Fed. 423, 38 L. R. A. 59, 19 C. C. A. 286, in defending action on policy, admitting evidence to show intent of insured in omitting a previous policy from his statement as to other insurance; Mayo v. Wahlgreen, 9 Colo. App. 518, 50 Pac. 44, in action for deceit in land contract, admitting evidence of statements by vendor to other parties as to what he had paid for the land, and a complaint in another action by vendor; Minx v. Mitchell, 42 Kan. 694, 22 Pac. 711, rejecting questions to a defendant testifying in his own behalf as to other trades of land, unless so similar in character that same motive might be reasonably imputed; Cook v. Perry, 43 Mich. 627, 5 N. W. 1057, holding, in an action for false representations, evidence was admissible that defendant had made same representations to another person; Wilkinson v. Dodd, 42 N. J. Eq. 249, 7 Atl. 334, in action to charge managers of an institution with loss resulting from an illegal loan, holding that charges in the bill, of making other illegal loans, were not impertinent nor scandalous; Archer v. Long, 38 S. C. 279, 16 S. E. 1000, admitting an account-book, kept by one of the parties, on a charge of fraud, to show intention of the parties, Ludom v. Furniture & Carpet Co., 12 Utah, 179, 42 Pac. 209, where the issue was one of fraud in purchase of goods, charging that the defendant was insolvent, admitting interrogatories and answers as to changing the articles of associates; Piedmont Bank v. Hatcher, 94 Va. 231, 26 S. E. 506, in suit to set aside a conveyance, as intended to subject the land to payment of certain notes, admitting evidence to show that the notes were procured by fraud; dissenting opinion in United States v. Budd, 144 U. S. 170, 36 L. Ed. 389, 12 Sup. Ct. 580, arguendo. Distinguished in West Florida Land Co. v. Studebaker, 37 Fla. 36, 19 South. 179, holding that statements in newspaper advertisements were irrelevant in an action for fraud and deceit in sale of lands; McKay v. Russell, 3 Wash. 383, 28 Am. St. Rep. 47, 28 Pac. 909, rejecting evidence of a distinct and independent transaction, having no bearing on the case at issue. 13 Wall. 465–474, 20 L. Ed. 507, CAUJOLLE v. FERRIE. Grant of letters of administration by proper court, directed by statute to grant them to "relatives of the deceased," is conclusive in another suit, upon question of grantee's legitimacy, that having been the question at issue at time of grant. Approved in Christianson v. King County, 239 U. S. 373, 60 L. Ed. 336, 36 Sup. Ct. 121, holding decree in rem of competent court that there are no heirs of intestate was binding on heirs not appearing; Overby v. Gordon, 177 U. S. 227, 44 L. Ed. 746, 20 Sup. Ct. 608, holding adjudication of domicile in Georgia not made in contest inter partes not conclusive upon court of District of Columbia; Higgins v. Eaton, 188 Fed. 956, holding law of domicile of decedent controlled in determining validity of codicil to will and estate must be administered accordingly though will was probated and codicil upheld in another State; Gunning System v. City of Buffalo, 157 Fed. 250, holding Federal court would give same effect to prior adjudication of state court as would courts of State; White v. Hill, 176 Ala. 487, 158 South. 446, holding where right to letters depended on relationship adjudication was conclusive as to relationship in that proceeding; McCann v. Ellis, 172 Ala. 69, 55 South. 305, holding decrees as to status of res are conclusive against world as to status, while decrees as to rights of parties conclusive only as to parties and privies; Union Savings etc. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 79 Ohio St. 100, 128 Am. St. Rep. 675, 86 N. E. 479, holding probate order appointing executor made with jurisdiction not subject to collateral attack though based on erroneous conclusions; King v. Ross, 21 R. I. 417, 45 Atl. 147, holding judgment in probate proceedings as to next of kin conclusive between same parties in subsequent suit; Veach v. Rice, 131 U. S. 314, 33 L. Ed. 170, 9 Sup. Ct. 737, holding that the judgments of the Court of Ordinary in Georgia, in matters relating to estates of decedents, are not open to collateral attack; Holmes v. Oregon etc. R. Co., 6 Sawy. 285, 5 Fed. 534, 7 Sawy. 387, 9 Fed. 234, holding that a grant of administration on an estate, vested in an administrator appointed by another court of competent jurisdiction, was void; Berney v. Drexel, 12 Fed. 394, holding that the decision of the surrogate as to the competency of a person to act as executor was conclusive against collateral attack; Comstock v. Herron, 55 Fed. 812, 5 C. C. A. 266, holding the judgment of the State probate court on matters within the scope of its authority, would have same effect in Federal courts as was given to it by the State laws; Howell v. Budd, 91 Cal. 349, 27 Pac. 748, holding that where the right to a grant depends solely on whether or not the applicant is the child of the deceased, the grant, until reversed on appeal, is conclusive in all courts, so far as the parties to the proceedings are concerned; Sly v. Hunt, 159 Mass. 153, 38 Am. St. Rep. 405, 21 L. R. A. 688, 34 N. E. 188, sustaining conclusiveness of record of probate of a will contested for unsoundness of mind, on question of sanity in an action on contract for services rendered; Smith v. Central Trust Co., 154 N. Y. 338, 48 N. E. 554, holding that an adjudication by a competent court of another State that a trust was created by a will, was binding on courts of New York, even though that court should be of another opinion; Frame v. Thormann, 102 Wis. 671, 79 N. W. 44, holding that a grant of administration in another State, in which the question of domicile was not raised, did not preclude an independent grant in State as to the property therein; dissenting opinion in Conery VII-44 |