existence of any actual fraud, yet under' such cIrcumstances, as againt the creditors, the bankrupt law deolares the con· veyance fraudulent. And the conveyanoe, even as to the $1,000, oannot be supported as a conveyance of the particular piece of property. The oonveyanoes will therefore be set aside, and the asgjgnee will be ordered to set off and assign to the bankrupt a homestead, and proceed and sell the real estate subjeot to the wife's contingent right of dower, unless she· shall otherwise agree. The $1,000 invested by her in the house shall be first paid her out of the prooeeds of the sale. Glidden v. Taylor, 16 Ohio St. 509 j Oliver v. Moore, 23 Ohio St. 473; Same v. Same, 26 Ohio St. 298. But, inasmuoh as she has been in the enjoyment of the house, this sum will be without interest. As to the two sums of $300 and $495, making together $795, she is declared to be a general oreditor, but without interest to the date of the bankruptoy, as the interest seems to have been paid up to that period. This oase will be referred to the register, to proceed, in pur. suance of this finding, to have the estate closed up as speed. ily as oircumstanoes will admit.
Court, D. Delaware. January 15, 1881.) 1.
BANKRUPTCy-SCHEDULE OF CREDITORS-AMENDMENT.
An application hy a bankrupt for leave to amend his schedule of creditors for the purpose of inserting the name of a creditor, inad. vertently omitted, is grantable of course, and is properly an e:v parte proceeding, requiring no notice to the creditors. To such an amend. ment creditors have no right to object.
In Bankruptoy. This is an application by the bankrupt to amend his sched. ule of creditors by adding the name of James R. Short, an unsecured creditor, to the list. He alleges in his sworn peti.
IN R'E HILL.
tion filed herewith that the name of said creditor was acci· dentally and inadvertently omitted from the same. E. G. Bradford, Jr., for bankrupt. 1. C. Grubb and W. H. White, contra. BRADFORD, D. J. This application was opposed by the last· named counsel, on behalf of the said Short, who did not appear of record, and had not proven his claim. They took the position that a bankrupt could not be discharged so long as he has omitted the names of any of his creditors from his schedule; and as a creditor who had not proven his claim had a right to oppose the discharge of such bankrupt on his petition for discharge, he would have the same standing in court and the same right to oppose the performance of any act of the bankrupt which became and was a condition precedent to his discharge. In opposition to this, it was contended by the counsel for the bankrupt that by section 5022, U. S. Rev. St., power to amend from time to time the bankrupt's list of creditors is given in the following words: "Every bankrupt shall be at lib.. ert;y, from time to time, upon oath, to amend and correct his schedule of creditors and property, so that the same shall conform to the fact;" and, also, that such application for leave to amend is ex parte, and that no creditor has the rigM to oppose the proceeding. The provisions of the above-quoted act are mandatory and positive in their character, granting rights to the bankrupt which the court has no discretion to refuse at this stage of the case; and as the proposed amendment of the schedule does not affect the status of the creditor in opposing the final discharge of the bankrupt, it would be inequitable and unreasonable to refuse to permit the amendment as prayed for to be made. Admitting the fact of the right of the creditor to oppose the granting of the final discharge, it does not follow. as claimed by the counsel for the creditor, that they have a right to object to the performance of an act which is permitted by the aforesaid section to be done at any time before the bank· rupt's discharge, and which is a condition precedent to his dis. v.5,no.5-29
charge. The court is also of opinion that the creditor has no standing in court at this time; that the proceeding is properly ex parte, and requires no notice to the creditors. The prayer of the petition is, therefore, granted.
(Oircuit Court, D. Dela'1011I1'6. January 29,1881.)
MECHANICAL EQUIVALENTS-SAME RESULTS.
Where a person procur'eltapatent for the building of a machine, which produces certain results which are novel and useful, by means of certain mechanical contrivances and appliances, any person who attempts to accomplish the same results by mere substitutions, which are equivalents of the means employed by the first patentee, is an infringer.
SAME-DIFFERl1lNCE IN FORM·
.AJJ.y application of known mechanical powers which will produce that result, although different in form from the means employed by the original patentee, is a mechanical substitute and equivalent of . the same.
Worth Osgood, for complainant. George P. Fisher, for defendant.
BRADFORD, D. J. This is a bill in equity, brought by the complainant, Wilt, agaipst the defendant, Grier, for alleged infringement of said Wilt's letters patent No. 190,368, issued May 1, 1877, originally to A. Quincy Reynolds, of Chicago, Ill., and by him transmitted by mesne assignments to the complainant. This patent is for an improvement in automatic fruit driers, and· its peculiarity and novelty consist in mechanical arrangements and devices by which a stack of trays, fitting into each other, the outer edges of which constitute the outer side of the stack of trays, or drying-house, are moved upwards, and suspended by attachments to the lower tray, in order that a fresh tray of fruit can be inserted at the bottom, and the process repeated at pleasure, thus building up the drying-house or stack from the bottom.