18 t FEDERAL Rnrourm.
Mo. 378;)" but that the authority given by the charter of the city of
St. Charles to its mayor and councilmen to levy and collect taxes
“upon all real and personal estate taxable by the laws of the state
within the city," is not taken away by the statutory provisions as to
‘ its valuation; that the legislation in reference to the assessment of
railroad property is not contrary to the provision of section 1, art. 10,
of the Missouri constitution of 1875 ; and that "the question whether
or not the St. Charles bridge property should be included as a part
of the road-bed and superstructure of the railway owning it, or as-
sessed and taxed as a separate property, was one exclusively within
the province of the state board of equalization to determine;" "and
that inasmuch as that board has passed upon that question, for the
years named, adversely to the contention of the city of St. Charles.
the city of St. Charles is bound by that determination."
Dyer, Lee tf: Ellis and F. W. Hinmcn, for intervenor.
H. S. Priest and George S. Grover, for receiver. »
l Tamar, J., (orally.) In the intervening petition of the city of St.
Charles in the Wabash Case I have gone over the subject, and the
exceptions to the master’s report will be overruled. If I talked an
hour I could addmothing to the exhaustive and analytical opinion
given by the master in this case. He has gone through the whole
subject in connection with the constitution and laws in great detail,
and very accurately and correctly. The court, not only adopts his
c . report in that matter, but his analysis and reasoning in regard tothe
case. The exceptions are overruled, and report confirmed.
Aronnriunrs Co., Limited, v. Scanner:.
(Oirouit Court, S. D. New York. March 16, 1886.) V
TRADE-MARK—INFRINGEMENT—CONTRACT ron Excwsrvn Hmm- ro Sam. "Hm<-
rxnr J».Nos" WA·ri:R·— Pmzerulsr: Faoin Pxnrms ro Wuoiu Owmrn Ricar-
FULLY Sonn-Rmsmnnine.
The owner of a spring of mineral water in Hungary entered into a contract
with complainant giving him the exclusive right to export and sell the water
underits name of ‘ Hunyadi J anos, "which he had adopted as a trademark, in
Great Britain and America. Defendant applied to the owner to purchase the
bottled water, but was refused, and purchased it from those to whom it had
been sold in Germany, and sold it in the United States in bottles with the same
label as that used by complainant, except that defendant's bottles, like all those
sold by the owner, were stamped with the words, “CAUTION. This bottle is
notintended for export, and if exported for sale in * * * America * * *
the public is cautioned against purchasing it," while complainants bottles
` were stamped " Sole exporters. " Held, that complainant was not entitled to
an injunction to restrain defendant from selling the water.
In Equity.
Roscoe Uonkling and Henry Melville, for complainant.
Wayne MctcVeagh and Emile Beneville, for defendant.