Patents-Reissue-Expanded Claim. MATTHEWS v. THE BOSTON MACHINE CO. 21 O. G. 349. This case was brought up on appeal to the United States supreme court from the circuit court of the United States, for the district of Massachusetts, and was decided March 27, 1882. Mr. Justice Bradley delivered the opinion of the court affirming the decree of the circuit court. Where the original patent shows upon its face that certain broad claims were not made, the patentees, if they are the inventors of such subject-matter, when apprised that it is not claimed in the patent, should use due diligence in surrendering the patent and having the mistake corrected. Fourteen years is too long a period of delay. In this instance the reissue is held to be not merely for a broader claim made many years after the original was granted, but for a different invention. By suppressing the description of certain parts of the device, the reissued patent is made to cover, by implication, an invention described and claimed in a subsequent patent. When, in view of the state of the art, the patentee's claim must be construed to be for the specific arrangement of devices invented by him, the defendants do not infringe unless their devices are in the same specified form. Geo. L. Roberts and Geo. Harding, for appellants. Causten Brown, for appellees. Directing Verdict-Civil Action. STEWARD v. TOWN OF LANSING. This was a suit brought to recover for interest coupons on town bonds issued in aid of railroads. At the trial, after the testimony on both sides was in, the court instructed the jury to find a verdict for the defendant, which was done, and judgment entered accordingly. This ruling furnished the principal ground of error assigned. The case was brought up on error to the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of New York, and a decision rendered on March 6, 1882, affirming the judgment of the circuit court. The opinion was delivered by Mr. Chief Justice Waite. It is not error in a court to instruct a jury to find a certain verdict, if it is satisfied that, conceding all the inferences which a jury might draw from the testimony, the evidence would not be sutlicient to support a ,::ontrary verdict. James R. Cox, for plaintiff in error. Francis Kernan, for defendant in error. Cases cited in the opinion were: Pleasants Y. Faut. 22 Wall. 122; Railroad Co. v. Traloff, 100 U. S. 26; OscallJ'on v. Arms Co. 103 U. S. 26.
and others v. DAYs.
(Cij'cuit Oourt, W. D. Missouri. April Term, 1882.)
ltEMOVAL OF CAUSE-ATTACHMENTS BY NON-RESIDENTS.
Non-residents cannot be deprived of their right to have controversies with citizens of other states delermined in the federal courts, and the circuit court cannot relinquish its jurisdiction by transferring the case to the state court. So held in a suit where non-residents sued out attachments against a citizen of the state, which were followed by other attachments in the state court, and a motion was made to transfer the suit of the non-residents to the state court.
Motion to transfer the case from this to a state court. Dysart &: Forster, for the motion. W. D. Carlile and W. T. C. Williams, opposed. KREKEL, D. J. It appears that plaintiffs, being non-residents of the state of Missouri, sued out an attachment against the defendant, who is a resident of this state, and seized a stock of goods now in the hands of the United States marshal, who is proceeding to sell them under orders of this court. Soon after the seizure of the goods by the foreign creditors certain Missouri creditors of the defendant· in the attachment sued out, in the local state court, writs of attachment, and are aiming under them to reach such of the proceeds as may not be necessary to satisfy the claims of the foreign creditors. In order to accomplish this more successfully they come here and file their motion asking that the case of the non-resident creditors be transferred by this court to the Macon county circuit court, the state tribunal in which the resident creditors have instituted their proceedings. The is sought to be maintained under section 915 of the United States Statutes, which provides that in all common-law cases the plaintiff shall be entitled to similar remedies by attachment, or other process, against the property of the defendant, which are now provided under the laws of the state in which such court is held for the courts thereof, and providing further for the adoption, by circuit and district courts of the United States, of the attachment laws of the states, which adoption has taken place in Missouri. It is claimed in support of the motion that by these provisions congress has not only adopted the attachment laws of the states, but has made them obligatory to the extent of controlling the forum· in which a party under given conditions, such as are pre,sented in this case, is bound, on demand to permit his case to be transferred to the v.ll,no.6-34