him. As shown in this note there is great weigllt of authority against this view,_ and the case could hardly have been well considered, when the case of Shaw v. P1'att,(d) where the contrary opinion was expressed, was neither cited by counsel nor noticed by the court, although decided shortly oe101'e in the same ... '" ... forum.
(a) 22 Pick,. 300
_ '1'6 rn
CD/Btrict (Jourt, E. D. PennBlIlvania. February 27, 1883.)
5045, REV. ST.-·EXEMI'TION TO BANKRUPf-MISCONDUCT-
A bankrupt, who is a fugitive from jnstice, and who has failed to acoount to the assignee for $5,000 and other property in his hands, has no right, after 10 years' aoqulescence, to olaim, under section 1i045, Rev. St., an exemption out of cash in. the hands of the assignee, the prooeeds of property sold by him.
In Bankruptcy. Exceptions to thereport of the register who allowed
the claim of the bankrupt for exemption. The facts are set forth in the opinion. J. P. S.·(Jobin and Josiah Funk, for exceptions of creditors and assignee:," C. L. Lorkwood and P. H. Reinhard, contra, and for the bankrupt. BUTLli.ni; J. Icanriot agree with the register respecting the bankrupt's claim. When the proceeding began the bankrupt had property "exempt from levy and sale upon execution or other process, under the laws of the state," as contemplated by section 5645 of the Revised Statutes. He had fled from, and abandoned his resideuc t in, this sta.te.:...-was a fugitive from justice; and has remained abroad ever since... The exemption provided for by the state statute is con· fined to citizens of the state, as her courts have decided. But the bankrupt, in my judgment, is not entitled to any part of his claim. If the trustee failed in duty, as alleged,-retaining and converting property to which the bankrupt was entitled,-the latter could have had redress by suit, or an order of this court in the premises. He sought no such redress. however; but for 10 yeats has apparently acquiesced in the trustee's conduct. The property has now passed beyond his reach, and his right of action against the trustee is barred. I was about to say that he now presents himself here to recover, not the property alleged to have been exempted, but money returned to the court for distribution, as part of the bankrupt's estate. This
$Reporleu by Albert B. Guilbert, of the PlliladeJphia Lar.
IN. BE MOYEa.
statelllent, is not accm'ate.He ,bas not presented himself, -either in person or by petition. The trustee, whoBe duty it was not, has called attention to the circumstances, and counsel for the bankrupt have pressed .the claim before the register. As before suggested,' the Claim is not ·for the property, but for money, the alleged proceeds. It is, therefore, purely equitable. To this money he has no legal right. Brought into court aspa1't of the trust estate,primajacie,ls matter of law and in strict right, it belongs to the creditors, ,who al0l;l6 are entitled to share.in the distribution. Under similarcircumstanc611 the courts of this state would dismiss.the claim without hearingrefusing to inquire into the sources from which the fund came. Okie's Appeal, 9 Watts & S. 156; Mark'sAppeal, 34 Pa. St. 36; Ny'ma.n's Appeal, 71 Pa. St. 447. liberal view, and The courts of bankruptcy have adopted a allow the bankrupt to' follow the proceeds of property unlawfully withheld and converted, where it is equitable to do .. In the c'ase before us, however, it would not'be equitable to award the bankrupt any part of the fund,-granting even thathisprtlperti was illlproperlyco:nverted. .His delay, and apparent acq'uiesence for so long a time,-weil calculated to mislead creditors,-sbould of close his mouth respecting the fund. In addition to this, however, is the important fact that while the law contemplates that the bank. rupt shall be within reach, to assist, by information and otherwise, in making the most of his estate, t.his claim.ant remained away, beyond reach, to escape demands made upon him here. StiUmore important, I think, is the fact that within three or four months of the adjudication declaring him a bankrupt, even a prior to the confession of bankruptcy found in the voluntary proceedi:ng which he commenced and abandoned, he received the large sum of $5,000 in money, in addition to the proceeds of valuable jewelry and pictures sold, no part of whicp was turned over to the trustee, .and of which no satisfactory account, in my judgment, has been reno dered. He says he paid Borne debts, without specifying any debts so paid; that he presented $1,500 to gavesQme amoupt to somebody who was under obligations on his account. is from satisfactory; and it is hardly made less so by the general state. ment that he appropriated none of it to his own use. ' Presenting himself here as a claimant IJ,gainst *e small sum .fo,r' Qreditors, it certainly is not too much to demand an account of wha.t was done with the large sum so re-ceive<h and in the;absence of'Buch an nc-count to treat him as havingcn.rried# awaJ"
readily have told us all about it had he been within reach and been called upon to do so early in the history of this proceeding. It cannot be doubted that he was insolvent, and knew it, when this money was collected; his voluntary proceeding was commenced a very few plOnths later. Why should he under'such circumstances give away $1,500, as he oonfesses he did? It belonged to his creditors. In the ,light of these facts it would, in my judgment, be grossly unjust to allow him to withdraw from the creditors any part of the fund here for distribution. The report of the register must be corrected accordingly, the claim being disallowed.
PARSONS tl. COLGATE
'U,ircuit (}ourt, S. D. Ne1lJ YO'l'k. December
If the field of invention be bounded by prior patents, tlJ,ough referring to the objects of the patent in issue only by general terms known in the art to which they belong to include theIn, the description of whai the inventor undertook to covel' must be construed in the light of their existenl(e. 2. SAME- FOREIGN PATENTS NOT WITHIN TERMS OF AC'f OF 1836, §§ 7, 15, NOT
Foreign patents urged as anticipations of domestic patents, where the article is not properly proveJ to have been known or used in thiE country, or the pat. entee's circular to the trade was not a printed puhlication, or his provisional specification did not make the invention described in it patented, within the meaning of sections 7 and 15 of the act of 1836, will not be considered.
A residuum is what is left after a process of separation. There are as many different residuums of a substance as there are products which may be taken away from it. ShOWing that both residllums come from the same source, that all in the residuum of the earlier of two patents is also in and is obtained by separation' from that of the patent of later date, does not make Ollt an infringement on the former. It does not show that they are the same ;-other. wise a prior patent for the same nse, of the common source, would cover both, The proper effect is to limit the application of" residunm." 4. SAME - UNCHARRED HESIDUUM OF PETIWI,EUM - USE IK SOAP- PATENT No.
in manufacture of soap of pro· duced by simmering petroleum down in open kettles, and afterwards tiltering through bone-black, does not infringe letters patent No, 56,259, employing for the same purpose another uncoked residuum of petroleum so ohtained by vacuum and steam process; for, while the charred and unchnrred particles are always mechanically xnixed, and the filtering out may he without chemical reaction, vaseline does not contain all the latter residue does; nor is it :luticipated by other patents using residuums of petroleulll in soaps; they contine it, however, to that particular residuum
237,484-ANTICIPATION-VALIDITY. Letters patent No. 237,484, for use