An appeal lies from an order directing costs to be paid out of funds in the bands or under the control of the court. The proceedings before the master may be regarded as so far independent as to make the decision substantially a final decree for the purposes of an appeal. It is a general Principle that a trust estate must bear the expenses of its administration, and where one of many parties having a common interest in the trust fund at his own expense takes out proper proceedings to save it from destruction and to restore it to the purposes of the trust, he is entitled to reimbursement, either out of the fund itself or by proportional contribution from those Who accept the benefits of his efforts. In the vast amount of litigation which has arisen in this country upon railroad mortgages, where various parties have intervened for the protection of their rights, and the fund has been sulJjected to the control of the court and placed in the hands of receivers or trustees, it has been the common practice, as well in the courts of the United States as in those of the states, to make fair and just allowances for expenses and counsel fees to the trustees or other parties promoting the litigation and securing the due application of the property to the trusts and charges to which it was subject; but an. allowance for private and personal expenses is illegal. Cases cited in the opinion: Angell v. Davis, 4 Mylne & C. 360; Taylor Y. Dowlan, L. R. 4 Ch. App. 697; Atty. Gen. v. Brewers' Co.l Peere Wms. 376; Atty. Gen. v. Kerr, 4 Beay. 297; Atty. Gen. v. Old South Society, 13 Allen, 474; In re Paschal, 10 Wall. 483; Stanton v. Hatfield, 1 Keen, 388; Thompson Y. Cooper, 2 Collyer, 87; Tootal v. Spicer, 4 Sim. 510; Larkin v. Paxton, 2 Mylne & K. 320; Barber v. Wardle, Id. 818; Sutton v. Doggett, 3 Beav.9; Worrall v. Harford, 8 Ves. Jr. 4; In re Williams, 2 Bank Reg. 28; In re O'Hara, 8 Law Reg. (N. S.) 113; Ex parte Plitt, 2 Wall. Jr. 453; Cowdrey v. Galveston R. Co. 93 U. S. 352; Robinson v. Pett, 2 White & T. Lead. Cas. in Eg.238. Estate upon Condition. GILES 'V. LITTLE. In error to the circuit court of the United States for the district of Nebraska. This was an action brought for the recovery of a lot of land in the city of Lincoln. The contention of the plaintiff in error is that the wife of deceased took an estate for life, SUbject to be determined in case she contracted another marriage. with remainder to heirs of deceased, and that the power of disposal conferred on her by will was co-extensive with the estate she took; that is, that power was granted to her to dispose of her life estate, and consequently the estate conferred by her determined upon her marriage. The case was determined in the United States supreme court, at the October term, 1881; Mr. Justice Woods delivering the opinion of the court reversing the judgment of the circuit court, and remanding the cause with directions to proceed in conformity with the opinion. Where a testator devises and bequeaths all the property of which he should die seized to his wife, with full power to dispose of the same so long as she shall remain a widow, upon the express condition" that if she shall marry again, then it is my will that all of the estate herein bequeathed, or whatever may remain, shall go to my surviving children, share and share alike;" held,
NOTES OF DECISIONS.
that the widow took a life estate, subject to be divested upon her ceasing to be a widow, with power to convey the life estate only. Cases cited in the opinion: Bradly v. Wescott, 13 Ves. Jr. 445; Smith v. 36 Ill. 355; Clarke v. Boorman, 18 Wall. 493; Bell, 6 Pet. 68; Boyd v. Green v. Hewitt, 12 Cent. Law J. 58; Brant v. Virginia Coal & Iron Co. 93 U. S. 326. HANSELT v. HARRISON. E1Tor to the circuit of the United States western district of Pennsylvania, ' An action of replevin wasprought for in thecircuitcQllrtby defendan,f in error to recover possession, of certain tanned skins and bark transferred 'by the bankrupt to the plaintiff in error in fraud of, the, bank:rupt l,aw. The case decided, in the supreme court on April 10,1882. 14r.Justice Matthews delivered the opinion of the court reo the jUdgment of the circuit court, , An agreement was entered into by the termsofwhich the party of the first part was to tan, curry, and finish certain skins, and when finished to send the skins before shipping to the them to tb.e party of the second part, party of the second, the ,latter to make certain advances for the purpose of enabling the former to carry out his agreement. The party of the first part becoming embarrassed and unable to fmiher carry out his agreement, a second agreement was entered into, ,whereby the party of the second part was authorized to take immediate possession of tannery buildings and materials in hand. Ile,ld, that the latter transaction, though made withknowledge of the party's insolvency andin contemplatiQnof bankruptcy, if made in good faith was legitimate, and did not constitute an unlawful preference. Lewis Sanders, for plaintiff in error. M. F. Elliott and H. C. Parsons, for defendant in error. Cases cited in the opinion: Powder Co. v. Burkhardt, 97 U. S. no; Gregory v. Morris, 96 U. 8.619; Cook v. Tullis, 18 Wall. 351; Yeatman v. SaVings lnst. 95 U. S. 764; Winson v· .McLennan, 2 Story, 492; Stewart v. Platt, 101 U. S. 739. Patents for Inventions.
BRIDGE, BEAOH & CO. V. EXCELSIOR M.ANUF'G CO. 21 O. G. 1955. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Missouri. This case arises upon a bill in equity founded on letters patent granted for an improvement in .cooking-stoves. The case was decided on appeal in the supreme court of the United States on May 8, 1882. .Mr. Justice Bradley delivered the opinion of the court affirming the decree of the circuit court. Letters patent claiming, "in combination with a stove door, a hinged shelf, fitted to fall outward and down automatically when the oven door is opened and to be raised up by closing the oven door, adapted to operate on it for that purpose," coverS only the specific devices for raising and lowering the hinged and as both devices claimed operate upon the same principle precisely