LIFE INSURANCE.

See ACCOUNTS AND ACCOUNTING;
INSURANCE COMPANIES.

LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES.

See RECEIVERS;

INSURANCE COMPANIES.

LIQUORS.

See LOCAL LAW (S. Car.).

LOCAL LAW.

Arizona. Rev. Stat. 1887, §3198. Riparian rights (see Riparian
Rights). Boquillas Cattle Co. v. Curtis, 339.

Howell's Code of 1864, c. 61, § 7, adopting common law (see Ripa-
rian Rights, 3). Ib.

District of Columbia. Code, § 935 (see Appeal and Error, 2). United
States v. Evans, 297.

Montana. Penal Code, § 2125. Discharge of jury (see Constitutional
Law, 6). Keerl v. Montana, 135

New Mexico. Actions for personal injuries. Territorial act of March 11,
1903 (see Actions, 3). Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v.
Sowers, 55.

Philippine Islands. Spanish Civil Code, § 1459. Purchase of stock by
directors of corporation (see Corporations, 4, 5). Strong v. Repide,
419. Civil Code, §§ 1261-1269. Avoidance of contract (see Con-
tracts. 4). Ib.

South Carolina. State Liquor Dispensary legislation. The legal history
of the constitutional provisions and legislative enactments of South
Carolina in regard to the State Liquor Dispensary, reviewed. Mur-
ray v. Wilson Distilling Co., 151.

MANDAMUS.

1. Purpose of writ issued under § 688, Rev. Stat.

A writ of mandamus when issued under § 688, Rev. Stat., is for the pur-
pose of revising and correcting proceedings in a case already in-
stituted in the courts and is part of the appellate jurisdiction of

this court, which is subject to such regulations as Congress shall
make. In re Winn, 458.

2. Writ will lie from this court to compel Circuit Court to remand case to

state court.

Mandamus will lie from this court to compel a Circuit Court to remand
a case to the state court where it is apparent from the record that
the Circuit Court has no jurisdiction whatever, and the writ will lie
even though the party aggrieved may also be entitled to appeal or
writ of error. Ib.

3. When appeal or writ of error not adequate remedy for wrongful removal
of cause, preventing issuance of mandamus.
While mandamus never lies where the party praying therefor has another
adequate remedy, an appeal or writ of error at the end of a litiga-
tion, which must go for naught, is not an adequate remedy for a
plaintiff whose case has been wrongfully removed from the state
court to the Circuit Court, and held there against his protest. Ib.

4. To control judicial discretion when subject-matter without jurisdiction
of court.

The rule that mandamus will not lie to control the judicial discretion of
an inferior court does not apply to an attempt of that court to
exercise its discretion on subject-matter not within its jurisdiction.
In re Pollitz, 206 U. S. 323, and Ex parte Nebraska, 209 U. S. 436,
distinguished. Ib.

MANDATE.

See PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 13.

MATERIAL-MEN.

See JURISDICTION, C 2.

STATUTES, A 11.

MENTAL CAPACITY.

See EVIDENCE.

MINES AND MINING.
See JURISDICTION, A 5.

MISSOURI.

See BOUNDARIES.

Although defendant may have been originally in fault, an entirely in-
dependent and unrelated cause subsequently intervening, and of
itself sufficient to have caused the mischief, may properly be re-
garded as the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries. (Insurance
Co. v. Tweed, 7 Wall. 44.) Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v.
Calhoun, 1.

2. Proximate cause-Railroad accident.

An unsuccessful attempt to replace a child on a railroad car held, in
this case, to be the proximate cause of injury to the child not-
withstanding such attempt was made as the result of the child's
mother having been prevented from getting off the car by the neg-
ligence of the railway employés. Ib.

3. Risks to be provided against-Liability of railroad.
Failure to foresee and provide against extraordinary and unreasonable
risks taken by other persons cannot be regarded as negligence, and
so held that a railroad company was not liable for negligence to
one who, in a reckless effort to run after and board a rapidly mov-
ing train, stumbled on a truck which had been left by an employé
at a place where ordinarily no passenger got on or off the cars. Ib.

OPINION EVIDENCE

See EVIDENCE.

PARTIES.

See ACCOUNTS AND ACCOUNTING;

ACTIONS, 1.

PARTNERSHIP.

1. Effect of adjudication putting two or more persons into bankruptcy as
partners to establish existence of partnership.

While an adjudication putting two or more persons into bankruptcy

as partners is, for the purpose of administering the property, good
as against all the world, it does not establish the existence of the
partnership except as against parties entitled to be heard, and that
question is not res judicata as against one who had denied being a
partner and had not been heard. Manson v. Williams, 453.

2. One furnishing capital to business presumed to be partner.

It will be presumed that one who furnished capital for business expects
gain therefrom, and if he is not a creditor receiving interest, his
gain must come from profits as a partner.

PATENTS.

1. Combination as true mechanical device.

ть.

A combination which produces by the coöperation of its constituents
the result specified in the manner specified is a true mechanical
device and a valid combination. Leeds & Catlin v. Victor Talking
Mach. Co., 301.

2. Combination of process and apparatus.

A patent may embrace more than one invention, Steinmetz v. Allen,
192 U. S. 543, and it may embrace a process and the apparatus by
which it is performed. Ib.

3. Combination defined--Inclusion of separate claim for new element in
same paicni as rombination.

or

While a combination is a union of elements which may be partly new,
wholly old or wholly new, the combination is a means distinct from
its constituent elements, any of which, if new and patentable, may
be covered by separate claims in the same patent as the combina-
tion. Ib.

4. Combination; destruction and reconstruction.
Where an element of a combination becomes unfit by deterioration
there is a destruction of the combination and a renewal of that
element amounts to reconstruction. Leeds & Catlin v. Victor
Talking Mach. Co., 325.

5. Combination; substitution or resupply of elements.

The right of substitution or resupply of elements of a combination ex-
tends only to repair and replacement made necessary by deteriora-

tion so as to preserve its fitness; license goes no further and does
not extend to furnishing such elements to increase effectiveness or
variety of the results of the combination.

Ib.

6. Duration-Effect of forfeiture or expiration of foreign patent for same
invention.

A patent of the United States for an invention extends under § 4887,
Rev. Stat., for the duration of the definite term for which a foreign
patent may have been granted for the same invention, and does
not expire by the forfeiture of such foreign patent or through the
operation of a condition subsequent according to the foreign patent,
such as the payment of fees during the life of the patent. Leeds &
Catlin v. Victor Talking Mach. Co., 301.

7. Expiration; effect on domestic of expiration of foreign patent. Identity
of invention.

In this case held that the foreign patent granted to Berliner for talking

machines was not identical with certain claims included in his
United States patent in suit and therefore his patent as to those
claims did not expire with the foreign patent under § 4887, Rev.
Stat. Ib.

8. Foreign patent; effect on dependent and related inventions.
Where dependent and related inventions are patented separately a for-

eign patent for either does not affect the other under § 4887, Rev.
Stat., and the same rule applies if such inventions are embraced
in one patent. Ib.

9. Infringement Effect of infringement or invalidity of one of several
separate claims in paient.

Separate claims in the same patent are independent inventions, and the

infringement of one is not the infringement of the other, and the
redress of the patentee is limited by the injury he suffers; nor is
the validity and duration of valid claims affected by the invalidity
or expiration of any other claim. Siemens v. Sellers, 123 U. S. 276,
distinguished. Ib.

10. Infringement-Sale of unpatented record discs specially adapted for
use on patented talking machine, constituting infringement.
Unpatented elements of a patented combination may not be sold for use
therewith although they may legally be sold for use with other
machines, and so held that it was infringement to sell record discs
specially adapted therefor to the users of a patented talking ma-
chine although such discs were not patented and could lawfully
be used in combination with other talking machines. Ib.