Miscellaneous. Cited in Emmons v. Sladdin, 8 Fed. Cas. 683, and Burton v. Burton Co., 171 Mass. 439, 50 N. E. 1029, as authority for holding the inchoate right of an inventor to letters patent may be conveyed.

14 Wall. 457-463, 20 L. Ed. 845, UNITED STATES v. BALLARD.

Where demurrer to special plea in complete avoidance is overruled, and plaintiff does not reply, court may properly enter judgment against him on whole case, although plea of general issue had been filed and issue taken. Approved in Wade v. Doyle, 17 Fla. 530, holding judgment should be entered for defendant, where plaintiff has filed replication to defendant's pleas, to which replication defendant has successfully demurred; Kern v. Saul, 14 Ind. App. 74, 42 N. E. 497, arguendo.

14 Wall. 463-472, 20 L. Ed. 849, BLACK v. CURRAN.

Under laws of Illinois homestead right cannot, in an absolute sense, be said to be an estate in land; fee remains where it was, but right of occupancy cannot be disturbed while homestead character exists.

Approved in Hicks v. Pepper, 1 Baxt. 44, 46, 47, holding homestead exemption a right contingent on occupation; therefore, if widow and minor children abandon occupation they lose the benefit.

Under Illinois law the fee in homestead tract may be sold under execution, subject to debtor's right of occupancy, and purchaser takes absolute title when homestead right ceases.

Approved in Crisp v. Crisp, 86 Mo. 633, and Bunn v. Lindsay, 95 Mo. 258, 6 Am. St. Rep. 51, 7 S. W. 475, both holding sale by sheriff of homestead tract is not void for failure of sheriff to set out homestead-the title passes subject to homestead; Flatt v. Stadler, 16 Lea, 374, holding lands of debtor may be sold, subject to right of homestead.

Explained in Hartwell v. McDonald, 69 Ill. 295, denying the rule and pointing out distinction between voluntary conveyance and conveyance by forced sale of homestead tract.

Distinguished in McLoy v. Arnett, 47 Ark. 453, 2 S. W. 73, where homestead lands of decedent leaving widow and minor children are sold for his debts and widow buys reversionary interest and sells land purchasers from her cannot hold land against minors. Conveyance as abandonment of homestead.

14 Wall. 472-479, 20 L. Ed. 830, DOLTON v. CAIN.

Note, 92 Am. Dec. 117.

When power is given by husband and wife to sell lands in certain district, on showing husband owned lands there, but husband and wife jointly owned none, power will be construed as giving authority to sell husband's land.

Approved in M'Claskey v. Barr, 50 Fed. 715, where acts done under power given for certain purpose, although there were some misdescription therein, were held valid; Clayton v. Spencer, 2 Colo. 381, following rule; Richards v. Bellingham Co., 54 Fed. 210, 4 C. C. A. 290 (affirming 47 Fed. 855), as authority for holding that a wife, who has a right of dower only in event that she survive her husband, has no present title in husband's land.

Necessity for color of title, not expressly made a condition by statute, in adverse possession. Note, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1237. Unrecorded deed as color of title. Note, L. R. A. 1915B, 1009.

14 Wall. 479–484, 20 L. Ed. 721, CROSS v. UNITED STATES.

Joint resolution of 1864, authorizing rehearing in Court of Claims, of claim for rents from United States, construed and held to authorize filing of a third petition, the second not being sufficiently comprehensive.

Approved in Luce v. Minard, 87 Vt. 179, 88 Atl. 728, holding successive suits for installments of rent, falling due at different times, may be brought.

14 Wall. 484-491, 20 L. Ed. 722, DIRST v. MORRIS.

Under act of March 3, 1865, authorizing trial of facts by Circuit Courts, Supreme Court, as a court of error, has no power to review the evidence on appeal, as to its weight or sufficiency.

Approved in Sierra Land & Live Stock Co. v. Desert Power etc. Co., 229 Fed. 983, and Dunsmuir v. Scott, 217 Fed. 202, 133 C. C. A. 194, both holding where civil suit is tried by court and general finding made, review on appeal is limited to such rulings as are presented by bill of exceptions; Joline v. Metropolitan Securities Co., 164 Fed. 651, holding that in action at law tried in Circuit Court without jury, defeated party is entitled to special findings of fact when it is doubtful whether he could otherwise present to appellate court question of law involved; Coulter v. B. F. Thompson Lumber Co., 142 Fed. 708, 74 C. C. A. 38, court cannot instruct as to which class of evidence is preferred; J. W. Bishop Co. v. Shelhorse, 141 Fed. 618, 72 C. C. A. 337, applying principle in action. for wrongful death; Streeter v. Sanitary Dist. of Chicago, 133 Fed. 126, 128, 129, 66 C. C. A. 190, in case tried to court where there were no special findings nor stipulation of facts, ruling in request that as matter of law plaintiff was entitled to recover amount claimed is not reviewable; Paul v. Delaware etc. R. Co., 130 Fed. 955, where general verdict is rendered only, such rulings in progress of trial are reviewable as are presented by bill of exceptions, or as may arise on pleadings; Davis v. Daugherty, 105 Fed. 771, 45 C. C. A. 39, holding request not based upon all the evidence, ruling of court thereon not reviewable on writ of error;

Merchants' Mut. Ins. Co. v. Folsom, 18 Wall. 252, 253, 21 L. Ed. 834, holding findings of Circuit Court, even when special, cannot be reviewed, except for purpose of determining whether facts found are sufficient to support judgment; Crews v. Brewer, 19 Wall. 72, 22 L. Ed. 64, Rhodes v. United States Nat. Bank, 66 Fed. 515, 34 L. R. A. 744, 13 C. C. A. 612, and St. Louis v. Western Union Tel. Co., 166 U. S. 391, 41 L. Ed. 1045, 17 Sup. Ct. 609; Ogdensbury etc. R. R. Co. v. Pratt, 22 Wall. 131, 22 L. Ed. 830, holding similarly as to competent evidence put before jury; dissenting opinion in Aetna Insurance Co. v. Boon, 95 U. S. 139, 24 L. Ed. 401, the majority holding the findings in the cause, under peculiar state of facts, were subject to review; Aetna Ins. Co. v. Ward, 140 U. S. 91, 35 L. Ed. 377, 11 Sup. Ct. 725, holding that Supreme Court, on writ of error, has no concern with questions of fact, or weight to be given properly admitted evidence; Searcy County v. Thompson, 66 Fed. 93, 95, 98, 100, 13 C. C. A. 349, following rule; Distilling & Cattle Feeding Co. v. Gottschalk Co., 66 Fed. 610, 13 C. C. A. 618, where parties submit cause to court without jury, and court makes general finding, neither correctness of finding nor refusal of court to make special findings, can be reviewed on writ of error; Sayward v. Dexter, 72 Fed. 769, 19 C. C. A. 176, and O'Hara v. Mobile etc. Ry. Co., 76 Fed. 719, 22 C. C. A. 512, both holding rule applies to appeals from Circuit Court to Circuit Court of Appeals; Parker v. Whittier, 91 Fed. 513, 33 C. C. A. 658, where cause was submitted to Circuit Court without jury, Circuit Court of Appeals, on writ of error, cannot examine evidence and supply finding on material issue; Groves v. Sentell, 69 Fed. 225, 16 C. C. A. 217, arguendo.

14 Wall. 491-493, 20 L. Ed. 723, COLLINS v. RIGGS.

To redeem property sold under a mortgage, for less than mortgage debt, the whole mortgage debt must be tendered or paid into court, and not merely amount of sale.

Approved in American Loan etc. Co. v. Atlanta Elec. Ry. Co., 99 Fed. 316, holding junior mortgagee's bill to redeem from sale under senior mortgage must contain offer of entire first mortgage debt; Dougherty v. Kubat, 67 Neb, 274, 93 N. W. 319, mortgagee may insist upon tenant in common redeeming only to extent of his interest; dissenting opinion in' First Nat. Bank v. Elliott, 125 Ala. 663, 27 South. 13, majority holding judgment creditor redeeming land not required to pay balance due on mortgage debt; Jones v. Van Doren, 130 U. S. 692, 32 L. Ed. 1080, 9 Sup. Ct. 687, McGough v. Sweetser, 97 Ala. 365, 19 L. R. A. 472, 12 South. 164, Hosford v. Johnson, 74 Ind. 482, and Martin v. Fridley, 23 Minn. 16, applying rule to junior mortgagees, who sought to redeem from sale, under senior mortgage; Evans v. Kahr, 60 Kan. 722, 57 Pac. 951, where mortgagor sought to redeem; Cunningham v. Macon etc. Ry. Co.,

156 U. S. 425, 39 L. Ed. 478, 15 Sup. Ct. 367, holding junior mortgagees could not avoid a sale without tendering reimbursement to first mortgage creditors; Sheffield etc. Ry. Co. v. Newman, 77 Fed. 794, 23 C. C. A. 459; German Bank v. Barham, 57 Ark. 536, 22 S. W. 96, and Fields v. 'Danenhower, 65 Ark. 399, 43 L. R. A. 522, 46 S. W. 941, holding rule is limited to some extent by statute providing lands may be redeemed on tender of amount for which sold, with interest.

Effect on lien of mortgage of sale under it. Note, 58 Am. Dec. 570. Remedy of one improperly omitted as party to foreclose proceedings. Note, 4 Ann. Cas. 849.

Party offering to redeem proceeds upon hypothesis that, as to him, the mortgage has never been foreclosed; therefore, he can only lift it by paying it.

Approved in President & Trustees of Tualatin etc. University v. Keene, 59 Or. 504, 117 Pac. 427, though remainderman was not made party to foreclosure, purchaser became subrogated to mortgagee's right to tender of amount remaining unpaid; Froelich v. Swafford, 33 S. D. 161, 144 N. W. 929, junior mortgagee, not party to foreclosure, cannot redeem from sale but only from senior mortgage by paying whole amount; Sellwood v. Gray, 11 Or. 540, 5 Pac. 199, arguendo.

14 Wall. 493-504, 20 L. Ed. 726, UNITED STATES v. POWELL.

Condition in distiller's bond, that obligors shall in all respects comply with laws relating to business of distillers, is prospective as well as present, and applies to all laws in force during term for which bond was given, whether enacted before or after its execution.

Approved in National Surety Co. v. United States, 129 Fed. 72, 63 C. C. A. 512, letter carrier's bond for performance of duties as carrierimposed by postal laws or regulations of department binds surety for discharge of duty of collecting letters to be registered imposed by order of department during term of bond; United States v. National Surety Co., 122 Fed. 908, 59 C. C. A. 130, holding sureties on distiller's official bond not relieved from liability by subsequent execution of warehousing bond; Soule v. United States, 100 U. S. 11, 25 L. Ed. 537, in holding obligors on collector's bond, liable for gauger's fees received by collector, although power to receive such fees was conferred after execution of bond; to same effect are United States v. M'Cartney, 1 Fed. 108, and Chadwick v. United States, 3 Fed. 756.

Distinguished in State v. Holman, 96 Mo. App. 201, 68 S. W. 967, holding sureties upon public administrator's bond not liable for default in duties imposed upon him by subsequent legislation; United States v. Singer, 15 Wall. 123, 21 L. Ed. 52, holding official bond of distillers

does not require them to make reimbursements to government for salary paid storekeeper before passage of resolution imposing this burden on distiller.

Miscellaneous. Cited in United States v. Potter, 27 Fed. Cas. 604; Whitehead v. Fisher, 64 Tex. 643.

14 Wall. 504-510, 20 L. Ed. 729, PHOENIX INS. CO. v. HAMILTON. Insurance may be effected in name of nominal partnership, where business is carried on by and for use of one of partners.

Approved in California Ins. Co. v. Union Co., 133 U. S. 410, 33 L. Ed. 736, 10 Sup. Ct. 369, holding it lawful for an insurer to insure in its own name, goods held in trust by it.

Necessity of joining nominal partner as party plaintiff in action by partnership. Note, 8 Ann. Cas. 369.

Insurance, in firm name of property, title of which is in name of individuals. Note, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 153.

Sale by retiring partner to his copartners, of his interest in firm, is not a breach of condition that policy shall be void if property is conveyed without consent of company.

Approved in Texas Banking etc. Co. v. Cohen, 47 Tex. 412, 26 Am. Rep. 301, following rule.

Construction of forfeiture clauses in insurance policies or other contracts. Note, 88 Am. Dec. 348.

14 Wall. 511-531, 20 L. Ed. 731, GORHAM MFG. CO. v. WHITE.

Law authorizing grant of patents for designs, plainly intended to give encouragement to decorative arts and contemplated appearance, rather than utility.

Approved in West Disinfecting Co. v. Frank, 146 Fed. 389, upholding Taussig patent No. 33,633, for design for casing for disinfecting apparatus; American Saddle Co. v. Sager Gear Co., 122 Fed. 648, holding Wheeler's design patent for bicycle saddle valid; Wood v. Dolbey, 19 Blatchf. 215, 7 Fed. 477, where patentee was protected in his patent for a design of jewelry settings; Untermeyer v. Freund, 37 Fed. 345, holding design will be protected where it presents a different impression on the eye from anything preceding it, and creates a demand for goods of its originator, even though it does not show wide departure from other designs; Redway v. Ohio Stove Co., 38 Fed. 583, 584, and Smith v. Stewart, 55 Fed. 482, holding it is immaterial that amount of novelty is small; Anderson v. Saint, 46 Fed. 762, where design for mantel was held patentable, although many elements going to make up same had been in use before; Foster v. Crossin, 44 Fed. 63, holding design to be patentable, must be new and original, and not a copy or an imitation.