Distinguished in In re Thomas, 199 Fed. 234, holding void mortgage given within four months of bankruptcy to secure pre-existing debt, when mortgagee knew of insolvency. Participation in debtor's fraudulent intent invalidating transfer. Creditor's right to buy property from debtor to satisfy debt. Note, 115 U. S. 67-69, 29 L. Ed. 346, 5 Sup. Ct. 1157, EHRHARDT v. HOGABOOM. One in possession of public land, without color of title, cannot question validity of patent therefor. Approved in United States v. McLaughlin, 12 Sawy. 199, 30 Fed. 160, following rule; Wright v. Roseberry, 121 U. S. 518, 30 L. Ed. 1048, 7 Sup. Ct. 999, holding identification of swamp-lands by Secretary of Interior, collaterally conclusive; dissenting opinion in Doolan v. Carr, 125 U. S. 638, 31 L. Ed. 852, 8 Sup. Ct. 1238, majority holding officer's want of power to issue patent, provable in action at law. United States patent, regular on its face, cannot, in action at law, be held inoperative as to any lands covered thereby, upon parol testimony that they had passed to State under grant of swamp and overflowed lands. Approved in Burke v. Southern Pacific R. R. Co., 234 U. S. 693, 58 L. Ed. 1549, 34 Sup. Ct. 907, patent issued under railway land grant act excepting mineral lands is conclusive, on collateral attack, that lands are agricultural; Le Marchel v. Teagarden, 152 Fed. 666, refusing to set aside action of Secretary of Interior in correcting clerical error in patent; Le Marchel v. Teegarden, 133 Fed. 827, holding person attacking patent for mistake or fraud must show fully all details thereof, before court will consider same; King v. McAndrews, 111 Fed. 865, 50 C. C. A. 29, holding patent of land within jurisdiction of Land Department is impervious to collateral attacks; Semer v. Auditor General, 139 Mich. 574, 95 N. W. 734, denying owner's right to object to the auditor general's and land commissioner's report as to nature of land delinquent for taxes; Alluwee Oil Co. v. Shufflin, 32 Okl. 817, 124 Pac. 18, lease by full-blood Cherokee allottee, approved by Secretary of the Interior will prevail over prior lease not so approved; Citizens' Trading Co. v. Bass, 30 Okl. 953, 120 Pac. 1097, refusing to hold as trustee purchaser from patentee of town lot; Chandler v. Calumet etc. Min. Co., 149 U. S. 90, 37 L. Ed. 661, 13 Sup. Ct. 801, and McCormick v. Hayes, 159 U. S. 346, 40 L. Ed. 175, 16 Sup. Ct. 42, both following rule; United States v. Winona etc. Ry., 67 Fed. 958, 15 C. C. A. 96, holding Land Department's decision conveys legal title, and is collaterally conclusive; New Dunderberg Min. Co. v. Old, 79 Fed. 604, 25 C. C. A. 116, holding de partment's decision on mining claim, conclusive, collaterally; Illinois Steel Co. v. Budzisz, 82 Fed. 161, holding validity of patents issued in 1838, not questionable by government or others; Blakslee Mfg. Co. v. Blakslee's Sons, 129 N. Y. 160, 29 N. E. 4, holding patent reviewable only in direct proceeding, where extrinsic evidence is necessary to establish invalidity; Winona etc. Land Co. v. Ebilcisor, 52 Minn. 324, 54 N. W. 94, arguendo. Distinguished in Cummings v. Powell, 116 Mo. 476, 38 Am. St. Rep. 611, 21 S. W. 1080, holding lack of authority to convey title, on part of issuing officers, provable by parol; Mendota Club v. Anderson, 101 Wis. 490, 78 N. W. 189, holding patent purporting to cover any portion of navigable lake, void to that extent. Duty devolves on Secretary of Interior, as head of Land Department, to determine what lands are of description granted by swamp-land acts, and his decision is controlling; hence, parol evidence is inadmissible to show that lands covered by United States patent to settler, under pre-emption laws, are such swamp-lands. Approved in Foss v. Johnstone, 158 Cal. 136, 110 Pac. 301, reaffirming rule; United States v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 218 U. S. 242, 54 L. Ed. 1020, 31 Sup. Ct. 7, proceedings to bring lands under swamp-land act of 1850 did not operate to except them from railroad land grant, where commissioner of general land office decided that lands were not swamp; Sawyer v. Osterhaus, 212 Fed. 773, where land has not been identified and patented to State under swamp-land act, plaintiff claiming through State cannot show that land was in fact swamp-land; James v. Germania Iron Co., 107 Fed. 601, 46 C. C. A. 476, holding Federal Land Department is quasi-judicial tribunal invested with authority to determine claims to public lands, and its patents are impervious to collateral attack; Small v. Lutz, 41 Or. 579, 69 Pac. 827, holding determination by Secretary of Interior on application for patent that lands applied for were subject to homestead, was conclusive against State conveyance under swamp-land; Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 343, 10 Pac. 724, holding evidence that land is swamp, admissible only where secretary has failed to act; State v. Portsmouth Sav. Bank, 106 Ind. 444, 7 N. E. 385, holding secretary's decision as to what were swamp-lands conclusive; South & North Alabama Ry. Co. v. Gilliam, 85 Ala. 175, 4 South. 695, arguendo. Distinguished in Rogers Locomotive Mach. Works v. American Emigrant Co., 164 U. S. 571, 41 L. Ed. 557, 17 Sup. Ct. 191, denying authority of secretary to certify lands under railroad act of 1856, previously granted to State by swamp grant of 1850; Chism v. Price, 54 Ark. 272, 15 S. W. 1034, holding general Land Department's approval of railroad's selection, not determination that lands had not passed under swamp grants; Fuller v. Shedd, 161 Ill. 491, 52 Am. St. Rep. 396, 33 L. R. A. 160, 44 N. E. 296, holding grant bordering on meandering lake, extends only to edge thereof. It is duty of Secretary of Interior, as head of Land Department, to determine whether land patented to settler, is of class subject to settlement, under pre-emption laws, and his judgment is not contestable in action at law, by mere intruder without title. Approved in Noble v. Union River etc. Ry. Co., 147 U. S. 175, 37 L. Ed. 127, 13 Sup. Ct. 274, holding decision of secretary that designated railroad is entitled to right of way over public land, irrevocable by successor; Chandler v. Calumet etc. Min. Co., 149 U. S. 89, 37 L. Ed. 661, 13 Sup.. Ct. 801, holding listing by surveyor-general, and approval by secretary, operate as adjudication as to what were swamp-lands; MeCormick v. Hayes, 159 U. S. 342, 40 L. Ed. 174, 16 Sup. Ct. 41, reaffirming holding; Winona etc. Land Co. v. Ebilcisor, 52 Minn. 323, 54 N. W. 94, holding certification of land to State, as being with grant, irrevocable. Distinguished in Lake Superior etc. Ry. Co. v. Cunningham, 44 Fed. 839, holding Land Department's approval of land selection, void, as to land embraced in prior grant. 115 U. S. 69-78, 29 L. Ed. 316, 5 Sup. Ct. 1172, THE CHARLES MORGAN. Under admiralty rule 24, Circuit Court, may, in its discretion, permit amendment of libel, so as to include claim for damages, growing out of original cause of action, and litigated in District Court, but rejected because not specified in pleadings. Approved in Munson S. S. Line v. Miramar S. S. Co., 167 Fed. 961, 965, 93 C. C. A. 360, appeal in admiralty to Circuit Court of Appeals opens whole case for trial de novo; The San Rafael, 141 Fed. 275, 72 C. C. A. 388, holding appeal in admiralty vacates decree of District Court and opens up trial anew; Gilchrist v. Ins. Co., 104 Fed. 571, 44 C. C. A. 43, holding an appeal in admiralty from District Court to Circuit Court, the cause is to be tried de novo, as if no decree had been rendered; Irvine v. The Hesper, 122 U. S. 267, 30 L. Ed. 1178, 7 Sup. Ct. 1182, Levy v. The Thomas Melville, 37 Fed. 272, and Nelson v. White, 83 Fed. 217, 32 C. C. A. 166, all holding appeal in admiralty, practically trial de novo; Liverpool etc. Steam Co. v. Phenix Ins. Co., 129 U. S. 447, 462, 32 L. Ed. 794, 799, 9 Sup. Ct. 474, holding cause may be remanded with instructions to allow amendment pleading foreign law; The City of New Orleans, 33 Fed. 685, allowing introduction of new allegations and proofs; The J. E. Trudeau, 54 Fed. 912, 4 C. C. A. 657, allowing amendment paying interest; The Philadelphian, 60 Fed. 425, 426, 9 C. C. A. 54, holding amendments in matters of substance, not allowable on appeal, in causes of instance; dissenting opinion in The Tokai Maru, 190 Fed. 458, 111 C. C. A. 282, to point that in absence of amendment to libel no new decree should be entered. Distinguished in The Bencliff, 161 Fed. 911, 88 C. C. A. 514, where libel in form and personam was defended, respondent was not permitted, after decision, to amend so as to claim that action in rem was proper remedy; The Beeche Dene, 55 Fed. 527, 5 C. C. A. 208, holding, on appeal in fifth circuit, new evidence cannot be taken by deposition de bene esse; The Iona, 80 Fed. 936, 26 C. C. A. 261, holding amendment, after release on stipulation, setting up claim not germane to original, not allowable. Contradictory declarations of witness, oral or written, made at another time, cannot be used for purpose of impeachment, until witness has been examined on subject, and his attention particularly directed to circumstances, in such a way as to give him full opportunity for explanation or exculpation. Approved in Kelly v. Stewart, 93 Mo. App. 57, holding witness not impeachable on his controverted declaration until he has had full opportunity for explanation and exculpation, if he desires to make it; Barton v. Shull, 70 Neb. 329, 97 N. W. 294, holding witness may be asked whether contradictory statement not made while detailing conversation with third party; Mattox v. United States, 156 U. S. 246, 39 L. Ed. 412, 15 Sup. Ct. 341, Nelson v. White, 83 Fed. 217, 32 C. C. A. 166, Michigan Ins. Co. v. Wich, 8 Colo. App. 418, 46 Pac. 690, and Carder v. Primm, 52 Mo. App. 108, all applying rule to various facts; State v. Jones, 29 S. C. 227, 7 S. E. 309, holding testimony at trial may be contradicted by testimony at inquest. Right to impeach one's own witness. Note, 21 L. R. A. 428, 429. 115 U. S. 79-87, 29 L. Ed. 352, 5 Sup. Ct. 1190, CLARK 7. BEECHER MFG. CO. Clark patent for blanks for carriage thill shackles, is not infringed by Smith patent. Approved in Heine Saftey Boiler Co. v. Anheuser-Busch Brewing Co., 43 Fed. 790, holding inventor merely changing form, should be closely limited to specifications; Johnson Co. v. Pacific Rolling Mills Co., 47 Fed. 589, holding, where patent is broader than claim, patentee presumed to surrender surplus to public. Right to patent for new method of applying scientific principle to useful purpose. Note, 20 E. R. C. 81. 115 U. S. 87-96, 29 L. Ed. 355, 5 Sup. Ct. 1132, WOLLENSAK v. REIHER. Wollensak patent for transom lifters must be limited to combination described and claimed, Approved in Gage v. Kellogg, 23 Fed. 894, holding reissue, expanding 115 U. S. 96-102, 29 L. Ed. 350, 5 Sup. Ct. 1137, WOLLENSAK v. REIHER. Approved in Chicago Ry. Equipment Co. v. Perry Side Bearing Co., Necessity that invention described in complete specification be Failure to improve opportunity to acquire knowledge affecting one's Approved in Edison v. American Mutoscope etc. Co., 127 Fed. 362, Reissue, for purpose of correcting mistake in original claim, must be |