a few ma.tters, a special rule' on the subject. All,en v. Thompson, 10 FED. REP. 116, 119. The application for a. jury trial will be granted, and the cause reset for hearing at the approaching stated term of the district court, when a jury will be in attendauce; and it is so ordered.
In ,.e SHEVILL and others, Bankrupts.
(District Oourt, E.
n. New YO'1'k.
:November 27, 1880.
The terms of a covenant in a mortgage-the agreement to pay the joint debt of two named parties, and any individual debt of either of them-will not cover a copartnership obligation of a firm composed of such parties and a third party.
BENEDIOT, D. J. The difficulty in the way of allowing the First National Bank of Brooklyn to prove its debt against the individual property of Thomas Shevill and Benjamin Shevill, respectively, is that their demand rests upon a copartnership obligation of the firm of Thomas Shevill & Co., composed of Thomas Shevill, Benjamin Shevill, and Randolph N. Bowlby. The covenant in the mortgage given by Thomas Shevill and Benjamin Shevilldoes not help the case of the bank, for the reason that there is no promise to pay the debts of the firm of Thomas Shevill & Co. The covenant is simply to pay any joint debt of Thomas Shevill and Benjamin Shevill, and any individual debt of either Thomas or Benjamin Shevill. The debt sought to be proved is neither the joint debt of Thomas and Benjamin Shevill, nor the individual debt of Thomas or Benjamin Shevill, but the debt of a firm composed of Thomas Shevill, Benjamin Shevill, and Randolph N. Bowlby. The proof of debt against the individual estates must be disallowed.
GRAHAM V. M'CORMIOK.
March 13, 1880.)
(Oircuit Oourt. N. D. Illinoi,.
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-PUBLIC USE AND BALE-RuLE 011'.
In order to determine whether a case is within the rule relating to two years' public use or sale of an invention, it is necessary to consider whether the particular devices sold ol'used, which the inventor claima to have invented, .were perfect, so that they embodied a complete invention. I.
BAME-TIME TO RUN BEFORE DATE OF BECOND APPLICATION.
Where an invention is withdrawn from an application for a patent, and described and claimed in a new application by the same inventor, and patents issue on both, the two years within which the invention claimed in the patent issued on the second application could be sold and publicly used, without invalidating such patent, will be considered as beginning to run two years before the date of the first application, and the first application will not be sufilcient to break the continuity of the proceeding which originates in that application, or change the rule as to the inventions claimed in the patent issued on the second application, so as to require that the two years shall be considered as beginning to run two years before the date of the second application·
.8. BAME-!:lALE AND USE ON TRIAL-PRACTicAL TESTS.
Where a machine is sold and used on trial, while the invention is imperfect and largely in experiment, and it is necessary for the inventor to have the help of others in testing it, such conditional sale or use should be considered as a use of the invention for such practical tests as the law permits an inventor to make, and not as such a public sale or use as will be sufilcient to invalidate a patent.
... PATENTEE-RIGHTS OF-MATTERS DESCRIBED IN FORMER PATENT.
On general principles, where a person has, within the meaning of the patent law, made an invention which he has described in an application for a patent, and a patent has been issued on such application for other matters of invention, he should not be precluded for that reason alone from applying for and obtaining a patent for that which was described but not claimed in the first patent. .
JOINDER OF PARTIEs-LEGAL TITLE-PRACTICE.
The objection that aU the parties interested in the patent are not joined as complainants will not be regarded favorably, when it appears that the legal title is in the complainant, and that the only interest claimed to be vested in the parties not joined is based on an old contract and assignment which have long lain dormant.
PATENT FOR HARVESTER-INFRINGEMENT OF.
The first and second claima of the harvester patent No. 74,342, issued to Alvaro B. Graham, February 11, 1868, held to be valid, and to be infringed by the machine described in patent No. 193,770, issued to McCormick, Baker, and Erpelding, July 31. 1877.
In Equity. This case was argued befvre the circuit juage and Judge DYER, of the eastern district of Wisconsin, the parties having requested the latter to sit with the circuit judge in this case, inasmuch as a case