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
as that which has been used for a long time for other similar purposes, and defendants lise a different device, they are not guilty of infringement. R. H. Parkinson, for appellants. . S. S. Boyd, for appellees. Admiralty-Appeal-Practice. WINSLOW 'lJ. WILCOX; WILCOX 'D. WINSLOW. Appeal and cross-appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of Ohio. The question presented by the appeal in this case is whether the circuit court erred in taking jurisdiction of the appeal from the district court. The decision of the supreme court of the United States was rendered on April 3, 1882. Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion, affirming the decree and dismissing the cross-appeal. The rule of the district court requiring an appeal to be in writing and filed with the clerk could. be dispensed with by that court; and if the district court allows an appeal without the writing, the appellee cannot object to the jurisdiction of the circuit court on that account. When, afterwards, the bond is given and accepted the appeal is perfected, and from that time the jurisdiction of the circuit court attaches; and a provision in the rule of· the district court that the clerk shall prepare and deliver to the circuit court the appeal and record in 20 days, cannot prevent the circuit court from entertainillg the cause, if, for any reason, this is not done. Cross-appeals must be prosecuted like allY other appeals. Every appellant, to entitle himself to be heard ·on his own appeal, must appear here as an actor on his own behalf, by appearahce of counsel and giving the security required by the rules, otherwise he will not be heard on such appeal; citing Grigsby v. Purcell, 99 U. S. 505. H. A. Terrell and A. G. Riddle, for appellants. L. Prentiss and Jacob D. Cox, for cross-appellants.
Admiralty-Practice. NICKERSON 'lJ. MERCHANTS' STEAM-SHIP COMPANY;·. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Maryland. This case was decided in the supreme court of the United States on March 27,1882. Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion, affirming the motion to dismiss the case. Where the only question presented arises on the findings of fact, and from these it appears that the collision was due solely to an llnjustifiabl(l change of course of the schooner when the vessels were in close proximity, which baffled the steamer in her efforts to pass in safety, the steamer is not liable for the consequences. John H. Thomas and George L. Thomas, for appellee.