the control of Congress thereover. Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States, 148 U. S. 312, distinguished as not resting on proprietary rights but on estoppel. Lewis Blue Point Oyster Co. v. Briggs, 82.

11. Beds of; title to; law governing.

The technical title to the beds of navigable rivers of the United States is either in the States in which the rivers are situated, or in the riparian owners, depending upon the local law. United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Co., 53.

12. Title of riparian owner in Michigan.

Upon the admission of Michigan as a State into the Union the bed of the St. Marys River passed to the State; under the law of Michigan a conveyance of land bordering upon a navigable river carries the title to the middle thread. Ib.

13. Title of riparian owner; subordination to right of navigation. The title of the riparian owner to the bed of a navigable stream is a qualified one, and subordinate to the public right of navigation and subject to the absolute power of Congress over the improvement of navigable rivers. Ib.

14. Obstructions in; conclusiveness of judgment of Congress as to what constitutes.

The judgment of Congress as to whether a construction in or over a navigable river is or is not an obstruction to navigation is an exercise of legislative power and wholly within its control and beyond judicial review; and so held as to the determination of Congress that the whole flow of St. Marys River be directed exclusively to the improvement thereof by the erection of new locks therein. Ib.

15. Obstructions in; right of one acting under revocable permit; effect of act of Congress revoking permit.

One placing obstructions in a navigable stream under a revocable permit of the Secretary of War does not acquire any right to maintain the same longer than the Government continues the license; and an act of Congress revoking the permit does not amount to a taking of private property so far as exclusion from what was covered by the permit is concerned. Ib.

16. Obstructions in; removal; power of Congress; effect of loss to owners. Every structure in the water of a navigable river is subordinate to the

right of navigation and must be removed, even if the owners sus

tain a loss thereby, if Congress, in assertion of its power over navi

1. Emergency judgment; accountability for.

One obliged to form a judgment in an emergency on the spot is not to be held accountable in the same measure as one able to judge the situation in cold abstraction. (The Germanic, 196 U. S. 589.) Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Brown, 317.

2. Contributory; movement of trains; failure to anticipate possibility of injury.

The movement of trains requires prompt action, and one engaged therein should not be held guilty of contributory negligence because he did not anticipate that he might be injured if he selected one of several ways of performing his duty even though he had knowledge of the existence of that which caused his injury. Ib.

3. Contributory; direction of verdict; damages on affirmance. There being evidence to sustain the verdict that plaintiff was not guilty

of contributory negligence, the court below properly denied a motion to direct a verdict for the defendant, and this court affirms the judgment with ten per cent. damages. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Prater, 177.

4. Fellow-servants; duty to each other; function of jury.

The truth of evidence tending to show a custom as to where switchmen walk in a railroad yard, is for the jury to determine; and if true it is the duty of an engineer, in the exercise of ordinary care to watch for a switchman whom he knows is in the usual locality and in front of his engine. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. v. Earnest, 114.

See EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, 2, 3;

MASTER AND SERVANT, 1, 2;

REMOVAL OF CAUSES, 6, 7;

SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS.

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS.
See BANKS AND BANKING, 1;
STOCK AND STOCKHOLDERS, 1.

NEWSPAPERS.

See MAILS, 2, 3, 4, 5.

NON COMPOS MENTIS.
See EXTRADITION, 10.

NON OBSTANTE VEREDICTO.

See COURTS, 3.

NOTICE.

Estoppel to plead ignorance.

One cannot plead ignorance of a fact of which he has notice as an excuse for violating rights of parties whom he is bound to protect. Citi

zens National Bank v. Davisson, 212.

See BANKS AND BANKING, 2, 3, 4;

COURTS, 2;

ESCROW, 2, 3, 4;

INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 2;
NEGLIGENCE, 2;

PATENTS, 6.

OBJECTIONS.

See JURISDICTION, D 4, 5;

INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY, 2, 3;

NAVIGABLE WATERS, 9.

OBSTRUCTIONS TO NAVIGATION.

See NAVIGABLE WATERS, 6, 14, 15, 16.

OCCUPATION OF CONQUERED TERRITORY.
See INTERNATIONAL LAW, 1, 2;
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.

OKLAHOMA.

See INDIANS, 3.

OPIUM TRADE.

See CRIMINAL LAW, 1, 2.

ORDINANCES.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 2, 2;

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.

The right to make, use and sell an invented article existed without, and before, the passage of the patent law; the act secured to the inventor the exclusive right to make, use and vend the thing patented. Bauer v. O'Donnell, 1.

2. Construction of patent law.

While the patent law should be fairly and liberally construed to effect the purpose of Congress to encourage useful invention, the rights and privileges which it bestows should not be extended by judicial construction beyond what Congress intended. Ib.

3. Law of, and that of copyrights, differentiated.

The patent law differs from the copyright law in that it not only confers the right to make and sell, but also the exclusive right to use the subject-matter of the patent. Ib.

4. Phraseology of patent law not technical.

In framing the patent act and defining the rights and privileges of patentees thereunder Congress did not use technical or occult phrases, but in simple terms gave the patentee the exclusive right to make, use and vend his invention for a definite term of years. Ib.

5. Monopoly created by patent law; when article beyond limits of. While the patent law creates to a certain extent a monopoly by the

inventor in the patented article, a patentee who has parted with the article patented by passing title to a purchaser has placed the article beyond the limits of the monopoly secured by the act. (Adams v. Burke, 17 Wall. 453.) Ib.

6. Sales of patented articles; right of patentee to limit price. A patentee may not by notice limit the price at which future retail sales of the patented article may be made, such article being in the hands of a retailer by purchase from a jobber who has paid to the VOL. CCXXIX-44

agent of the patentee the full price asked for the article sold. Henry v. Dick Co., 224 U. S. 1, distinguished. Ib.

7. Use of invention; right to transfer article with qualified title as to use. The right given by the patent law to the inventor to use his invention should be protected by all means properly within the scope of the statute, and the patentee may transfer a patented article with a qualified title as to its use. (Henry v. Dick Co., 224 U. S. 1.) Ib.

8. Vending; effect of use of words "vend" and "vending” in §§ 4884, 4952, Rev. Stat.

The words "vend" and "vending" as used in § 4952, Rev. Stat., in regard to the copyright protection accorded authors and as used in § 4884, Rev. Stat., in regard to the protection accorded inventors for their patented articles, are substantially the same, and the protection intended to be secured to authors and inventors is substantially identical. Ib.

9. Vending; effect of word "vending" in patent law.

While Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U. S. 339, recognized that there are differences between the copyright statute and the patent statute, and disclaimed then deciding the effect of the word "vending" as used in the latter, this court now decides that the terms used in regard to the protection accorded by both statutes in regard to the exclusive right to sell are to all intents the same. Ib.

10. Vending; effect of attempt to reserve right to fix price on resale. Where the transfer of the patented article is full and complete, an at

tempt to reserve the right to fix the price at which it shall be resold by the vendee is futile under the statute. It is not a license for qualified use, but an attempt to unduly extend the right to vend. Henry v. Dick Co., 224 U. S. 1, distinguished. Ib.

PENALTIES AND FORFEITURES.

See MAILS, 4, 5.

PERIODICALS.

See MAILS.

PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.

1. Military occupancy of; limitation of extent.

The military occupation by the United States, during and after the war with Spain, of the Philippine Islands, and the conduct of the military government thereof, did not extend to places which were