v. Graft, lMU. S. 702, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep; 378, where the Bupremecourt lays: "A prior foreign patent operates under our law to limit th", dwa;tion of patent here, but that is all. The of articlei4 in the United States under a United States patent trolled by10reign laws." The motiohfor an injunction against the and E. J. Willis.is granted. Inasmuch·as it does not appear that they had any interest in the sale of the infringing they are not liable to account.
TARR et al. v. ROSENSTEIN et at (Circuit Court of Appeals. First Circ1;1it. October 19, 1892.) No. 84.
A supersedeas bond. conditioned according to the statote,for prosecuting I&n apP6",1 effect and answeriJ:lg all dalll3g'es 'and costs. covers, not merely cOlllpensatiwl"for tlJ.e delay arising .from the but also the amount ,of tlJ.e decree'aj)p'ealed from, so far as the latter direbts the payment of money by appellant to appellee.' 51 Fed. Rep.,868, affirmed. "
8. SAME-mEREST-MONEY DEPOSITED IN COURT.
But in anaqtion Qntl1e bO,nd neither. the priucipal nQr sureties can be mulcted what as the rElstilt of the appeal; and where a sum dill>0sited, In court'by a receiver. was there retained pending an appeal, and no proviSion was made for inter;esttheN3oo in the maildate or the decree entered in pursuance thereof, no such. intereM .could be recovered In an ac868. affirmed. . tion on thesupersede8ll" bond. 51 Fed.
A decree fof the payment of by'liefendant to complainant was affirmed on appeal; and the decree entered in pursuance of the mandate allowed froom the date Qfthe appeal. Notice was at once giVlln to the suretie! bond that plaintiff l.ooked to them for payment of the deon the cree. Two days later the stireties .weresummoned as trustees in a suit against theplalo·tiff, but gave no attention to the·same. and were defaulted therein. Hsld that, 8S they were in actual personal default to plaintiff from the date of the notice, could not payment of. interest to him because of the. trustee pro¢es,. especially as they did not set aside and cause to remain idle 'any fund to meet the decree or the judgment in the action. 51 Fed. Rep. 368, affirmed.
OIl' TRUSTEE PROCESS.
·· ·SAME-FEDER,\L AND STATE COURTS.
No restraint or embarrassment can,lawf,ully be put on the enforcement of judgments or decrees of the federal courts by means of trustee process Issued by a state court: and, as execution could have Issued against the principal debtor upon the decree entered In pursuance of the mandate, the enforcement of such decree against his sureties could not be prevented by the trustee suit, tor, while execution <:ould not have gone against them, they were so intimately conne.cted with him as to stand in the same position. 51 Fed. Rep. 368, 'affirmed. . .
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts. , Action bJ JllliusW. Rosenstein and others against Robert TaIT, principal, and William C. Dolliver and John S. Dolliver, sureties, on ,jL supersedeas bond. Judgment for plaintiffs. See 51 Fed. 368, a full statement of the facts will be found. Defendants bring Affirmed. . . .
Benjamin F. Butler; and Eugene J. Hadley, (Eugene J. Hadley, of counsel,) for plaintiffs in error. William F. Slocum and Winfield S. Slocum, for defendants i.n error.
PEATHERSTONE ". GEORGE 'R. BIDWELL CYCLE 00.
Circuit Judge, and NELSON and WEBB, District
PER CURIAM. We agree with ,the learned circuit judge who decided thiS <l8rse in the court below, for the reasons stated in his opinion, that the tru:stee proceedings afford no ground for withholding from the defendants in error the benefit of the superSedeas bond, and that they are entitled to interest on the full amount of the decree entered June 28, 1890, without deduction on account of the trustee proceedings. Judgmentaflirmed, with interest and costs.
FEATHERSTONE .... GEORGE R. BIDWELL CYCLE CO. (Circuit Coun, B. D: New York. October 1, 1892.)
, N o . 5,136.
PATlllNTS ,POR lNvlllNTIONS-ANTICIPATION...,-PNEUMATIC CYCLE TmEll.
CI&iin 4 'of reissued patent No. 11,153, granted March 24. 1891, to John , B. Dunlop, upon original patent issued to him September 9, 18110, covers, in .ubstan:ce, the union of an inflated, expansible tubular tire to the rim of a <lyql$ whl;iel by meaDs of a nonexpansiblecontining envelope surrounding the tire, and h!,ving flaps, which are turned over and cemented to the inner sur· face of the rim. Held, that this claim was not anticipated by patent No, 5,104, issuedMsy 28.1847, to Robert W. Thompson, for an improvement in carriage wheels. etc.· claiming a rubber tube, a covering of canvas, ,and au outer cas· ing, consi"ting of two strips of leather. ,one bolted to the outer side of the felly, and ,fastened to the other Iltrip by rivets or by leather thongs. .. 8..um-IxVENflON-Pnron ART. , Therewlls nothing in the prior state of the art, as shown either by the nine patents issned in 18t19 to A. W. Thomas, or by other patents. to render such claim ,invalid for want of invention, especially in view of the fact that this tire was the first one commercially adopted, and that it went into immediate and very extensive use. I. SAME. .But, in view of the prior state of the art as shown by the foregoing patents. and especially by the Wilkins patent, there was no invention in the additioual element added by the fifth claim of the Dunlop patent, namely, an "outward protective covering of India rubber. the edges of which are secured to the fnner surface of the rim, as set forth." 6. ,BAMB-REISSUE-EsTOPPEL-ApPLICATION-FALSE STATEMENT. In his affidavit. accompan,.ying the application for the original American patent Dunlop swore that the invention wasthe same as that covered by the British patent issued to him in 1889. Defendants claimed. however, that the tirst claim of the reissue is identical with a prior English patent issued to the patentee in 1888. Held that, even if this were true, and the affidavit conse· quently false. there being no other evidence of fraud. the whole of the reissue was 'not invalidated thereby. it appearing that the question of identity may have been a doubtful one, which the applicant would probably leave to hi. attorney; I. BAME-ESTOPPEL. After the issue of the original American patent, and before his application for the reissue. the patentee applied for a second American patent, swearing that the invention therein claimed had never been patented, with his knowledge or consent, in any country. This statement was untrue as to part of the claims. for they had been described in the English patent of 1889. Held, that this false statement, in the abSence of the otber elements of an estoppel, did not'preclude the patentee from asserting the claims of the reissue
.. 8rA-n-REI8BVE--VALIDI"y-SAloIll: INVENTION.
On an eXamination of the patents it sufficiently appears that thf' invention covered by the fourth and flfth claims of the reissue was the same lAventioD intended to be secured by the original patent of September 9, 18110.