IN RIll 'XIMBALl.. '
threatened to creep into the administratIon of the bankrupt law, the Bulireme court, as I conceive, $0 amended the general orders in bankruptcy as to put an end to allowances out of the bankrupt's estate to the petitioning creditors' attorneys, solicitors, or counsel.
And now, May 31,'1881, the register's report, in so far as it recommends the allowance of attorney's fees, is disapproved, and such allowances, whether for fees paid or incurred, are, refused i but the court confirms the report of the register in resplkt to other necessary expenditures and disuursements, and the same, as set forth in the repol't, are allowed.
I'n re KIMBALL, Bankrupt.
(Circuit Oourt, D.
BANKRUPTCy-BoOKS OF ACCOUNT.
A teamster, who, even to a very considerable extent, buys and sells hay and straw for the bona fide purpose of keeping his teams from standing idle, is not such a merchant or tradesman as is hound to tpe tpe bankrupt law. keeP books - [ E D. ·
for Revision.' Dudley & Du4ley, for petitionel'; Ger>. W. Morse and IT'. O."Liine; fbrlbankrnpt.
districtcOl'lrt ;,\Vrua,right in hQlding ha,nkrupt'w.a.s not such a m'erchant or tradesman as :isbdundto keep; boob of account. was a teamster, owning many horses 'and carts, and engaged years very extensively in his regular business. When tpa,t bec.ame slack, he took to lilupplying certain friends and neighbors with hay and straw. He did this to keep his horses and carts, employed, 'and when he sold at wholesale he charged only enough above the cos.t to pay his usual charges for teaming. He sold sometimes at retail, but how often or how much does not appear. The total amount of business which he 'did' in 'hay and straw, in some years, was very considerable. ' . , I was much impressed with the argument for the creditor, that this man really had two distinct vocations, that of a.
teamster and that ofa merchant. I think, however, that his case comes fairly within thepJ;inciple of Cote's Case, 2 Low. 374. I gave the subject t4en ali the investigation which s.eemed necessary, and I remain of opinion that this law is very imperfect and limited in its scope. It does not require bankers, brokers, mannfacturers, carriers; and miners to keep. books of ft,ccount, but only merchants and tradesmen. Most of the business of the United States is done 'by persons who are not within the, requirement. My opinion in Cote's Case was approved by Dillon J., Be Stickney, 5 Dill. 91. I do not feel bound or authorized to apply this limited law to a teamster, who, even to a very considerable extent, bought and sold hay and the bona fide .purpose of keeping his teams from standing idle. Petition for revision denied. '
PENNINGTON and others v. KING.
(Oireuit Court, D. Ma'8aehu,etts.
PATENT-AuTOMATIC LAWN Sl'RINXLERB-'-ANTICIPATION.
Sprinklerswlthradial·arms, revolved automatically by the force of ,'Yater passing out one and the side of each arm, and sprinklers having a seini-globular vessel; with radial ridges and per.forations on one side thereof. causing the veSsel to revolve by the water passing through them, Mld, not to anticipate a sprinkler having a Jose or globe, with holes bored a.t an angle Qf inclination, 80 as to produce revolving motion by the forcibie discharge of water ' through theni.'
2. BAME-bIPROVEMENT8 WITH PA'I'ENTED DEvICE-INI'RINGEHEN'l'.
The fact that the defimdantholds a later pateDt for improvements him to use the complainants', patented combination will not with such improvements. The employment by the defendimt of an upright tube in combil1.ationwith the complainants' deVice, enabling himto have an upward jet. of water, and the addition of 8 valve to so that the jet xnay be alone used, shut off thevvater from the or both use4 simultaneously, does not affect the infriI\gement. 3. PATENT No. 203,069, granted Pennington and Beggs, April 30, 1878, for improvement in automatic lawn sprinklers. held, tJalia·.
,:: In Equity.