16. (Oct., 1876.) Where an account for the infringement of letters-patent is prayed for and decreed, the record filed here should set it forth. This court should not be called upon to perform the duties of a master. Cawood Patent, 4 Otto, 695.

17. (Oct., 1877.) The court calls attention to the irrelevant matter and useless repetitions with which the record in this case is incumbered; and, while reversing the decree below, adjudges that the parties pay their respective costs in this court; and refers to rule 52 in admiralty as containing suggestions which may serve as an appropriate guide in making up the record in a case at law or in equity. Railway Co. v. Stewart, 5 Otto, 279.

18. (Oct., 1878.) Held,. Held, . . . 2. That the motive of the court for granting it [the certificate of probable cause] makes no part of the record, and should not have been recited therein. Stacey v. Emery, 7 Otto, 642.

19. (Oct., 1879.) For the purposes of an appeal to, or a writ of error from, this court, the transcript of the record is sufficiently authenticated, if it be sealed with the seal of the court below, and signed by the deputy clerk thereof in the name of and for his principal. Garneau v. Dozier, 10 Otto, 7.

20. (Oct., 1879.) The evidence and proceedings [where notes of the proceedings at the trial of a feigned issue, and of the evidence there given, are procured for the use of the Chancellor] become then a part of the record, and are subject to review by the appellate court should an appeal from the decree be taken. Watt v. Starke, 11 Otto, 247.

SECTION 698. NO NEW EVIDENCE, IN SUPREME COURT, IN EQUITY, ON APPEAL. DECISIONS 1-3.

1. (Jan., 1835.) After the appeal had been docketed in this court the appellants asked permission to send a commission to procure testimony, which, it was alleged, would fully

explain the circumstance, and offered to read ex parte depositions to the same purpose.

BY THE COURT: This is refused, because, in an appellate court, no new evidence can be taken or received, without violating the best established rules of evidence. . . . Mitchell v. United States, 9 Pet. 715.

2. (Oct., 1875.) This court cannot, after an appeal in equity, receive new evidence; nor can it upon motion set aside a decree of the court below, and grant a rehearing. Roemer v. Simon, 1 Otto, 149.

3. (Oct., 1875.) Cases in equity come here from the Circuit Courts, and the District Courts sitting as Circuit Courts, by appeal, and are heard upon the proofs sent up with the record. No new evidence can be received here. Blease v. Garlington, 2 Otto, 1.

Writs of Error and Appeals, without Reference to Amount.

SEC. 699. A writ of error may be allowed to review any final judgment at law, and an appeal shall be allowed from any final decree in equity hereinafter mentioned, without regard to the sum or value in dispute:

Patent and Copyright Cases.

First. Any final judgment at law or final decree in equity of any Circuit Court, or of any District Court acting as a Circuit Court, or of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, or of any territory, in any case touching patent-rights or copyrights.

8 July, 1870, c. 230, ss. 56, 107, v. 16, pp. 207, 215.

SECTION 699. DECISIONS.

1. (Jan., 1848.) When a case is sent to this court, under the discretion conferred upon the court below by the seventeenth section of the act of July 4, 1836 (patent law), (5 Stat. at Large, 124), the whole case comes up, and not a few points only. Hogg v. Emerson, 6 How. 437.

2. (Jan., 1849.) The amount of damage which will follow from restraining a party from using a machine held under a patent-right is a proper consideration to be addressed to the Circuit Court, but does not constitute a ground of appeal. Barnard v. Gibson, 7 How. 650.

3. (Dec., 1850.) The seventeenth section of the act of 1836 gives the right of appeal to this court, when the sum in dispute is below the value of $2,000, “in all actions, suits, controversies on cases arising under any law of the United States, granting or confirming to inventors the exclusive right to their inventions or discoveries," provided the court below shall deem it reasonable to allow the appeal. Wilson v. Sandford, 10 How. 99.

4. But a bill filed on the equity side of the Circuit Court to set aside an assignment, upon the ground that the assignee had not complied with the terms of the contract, is not one of these enumerated cases; and the value in dispute being less than $2,000, this court has no jurisdiction over the case. Ib.

5. (Dec., 1857.) Where a bill is filed to enforce the specific execution of a contract in relation to the use of a patentright, this court has no appellate jurisdiction, unless the matter in controversy exceeds, $2,000. Brown v. Shannon, 20 How. 55.

6. The jurisdiction, where the bill is founded upon a contract, differs materially from the jurisdiction on a bill to prevent the infringement of the monopoly of the patentee, or of those claiming under him by legal assignments, and to protect them in their rights to the exclusive use. Ib.

7. (Dec., 1867.)

of a prior date, the

as"

Though a decree have been entered “ date of an order settling apparently the terms of a decree to be entered thereafter, the rights of the parties in respect to an appeal are to be determined by the date of the actual entry, or of the signing and filing of the final decree. Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 6 Wall. 153.

8. (Dec., 1871.) The right given by the acts of Feb. 18, 1861, and July 20, 1870, of appeal or writ of error, without regard to the sum in controversy, in questions arising under laws of the United States, granting or conferring to authors or inventors the exclusive right to their inventions or discoveries, applies to controversies between a patentee or author and alleged infringer, as well as to those between rival patentees. Philip v. Nock, 13 Wall. 185.

Actions for Enforcement of any Revenue Law.

Second. Any final judgment of a Circuit Court, or of any District Court acting as a Circuit Court, in any civil action brought by the United States for the enforcement of any revenue law thereof.

31 May, 1844, c. 31, v. 5, p. 658.

1. (Jan., 1850.) The act of May 31, 1844 (5 Stat. at Large, 658), gives jurisdiction to this court in revenue cases, without regard to amount, only where the judgment is rendered in a Circuit Court of the United States. Therefore, where the case was brought from the Court of Appeals for the Territory of Florida, and the amount in controversy did not exceed $1,000, the case must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. United States v. Carr, 8 How. 1.

2. (Dec., 1851.) Under the act of Congress passed on the 31st of May, 1844 (5 Stat. at Large, 658), directing that final judgments in a Circuit Court, in any civil action brought by the United States, for the enforcement of the revenue laws, may be reviewed in this court without regard to the sum or value in controversy, this court can exercise jurisdiction. The reve nue of the Post Office Department is a part of the revenue of the government. United States v. Bromley, 12

How. 88.

3. (Oct., 1878.) An action by the United States to recover the proceeds arising from sales of tobacco, which, found in the hands of the defendant, a bailee, was seized as for

feited for the non-payment of the tax due thereon, and then left with him under an agreement with the collector of internal revenue, that he, the bailee, should sell it and hold the proceeds, subject to the decision of the proper court, is within the meaning of sec. 699 of the Revised Statutes, an action to enforce a revenue law; and this court has jurisdiction to re-examine the judgment without regard to the amount involved. Pettigrew v. United States, 7 Otto, 385.

Actions against Revenue Officers.

Third. Any final judgment of a Circuit Court, or of any District Court acting as a Circuit Court, in any civil action against any officer of the revenue, for any act done by him in the performance of his official duty, or for the recovery of any money exacted by or paid to him, which shall have been paid into the treasury.

27 March, 1868, c. 34, s. 1, v. 15, p. 44.

1. (Jan, 1845.) It can hardly then be imagined that when Congress was taking measures expressly to secure uniformity of decision and practice in relation to the amount of duties imposed by law, they would have confined the writ of error to cases brought by the United States, when they were of small amount, and refused it in suits against collectors in similar controversies, if they supposed that such suits could still be maintained. [Text of opinion.] Cary v. Curtis, 3 How.

244.

2. (Dec., 1858.) The act of Congress passed on the 3d of May, 1844 (5 Stat. at Large, 658), authorizes a writ of error at the instance of either party, upon a final judgment in a Circuit Court, in any civil action brought by the United States for the enforcement of the revenue laws, or for the collection of duties due or alleged to be due, without regard to the sum or value in controversy.

But this law does not include a case where an action was brought against the collector for the return of duties paid