OSBORN &, CHEElmAN 00.
heard to say, "My creditor might have learnedth8.t t intended to defraud· him)!' .if he had searched the 'tecords .or made inquiry. The creditor has a right to rely upon all the property' of the debtor which in law or equity is liable: for the debt, and this includes such as may have been conveyed with a view to deprive him of his remedy. The creditor is entitled to whatever remedy by judgment, execution, and the sa.le of property. he would have enjoyed had the fraudulent conveyance never been made. . As to him, it is voidbeeause intended to defraud him, and because, if not set aside', he would be deprived ofa substantia;! right, to-wit, the right to levy upon and sell the property conveyed for the payment of his debt. The authorities cited by <lounsel for respondents, rightly understood, are not in conflict with this doctrine. If they Wc;lre, I would not follow them. The decree of the district court will be affinned.
HAYDENB V. OSBORN
(Oif.o.uu (lowt, IJ. ConnectiCut. December 11, 1880.)
1. PATENT No.
Letters patent No. 209,701,-granted November 5,1878, to George .Complainant's device, , consisting of a fastening-plate hinged to the cross-bar of an ordinarily-constructed buckle, with its \lase terminating in a central single prong, and a prong pierced and extending. from its body portion, both prongs being bent at right angles to such plate tQ enter the article 'to' which the buckle is to be attached· through slits cut therein on lines parallel with each other, and clamp such articles by being bent down' on eitl!.er:side, hild, infringed by a bl1ckle containing a similarlY-Qonstructed plate hinged to t'lC0-hOUBed jourTflUS, and not infringed by a buckle with its 'terminating in a single central prong, with two prongs pierced, and extendihg irom its body.portion not in same longitudinal line. ., .'
W. McGill, for improved buckles; lit/d, valid.
George E.Terry, for plaintiff. Charles' B>Tilden, for
" SmPMAN, D. J. ,This is abiU in equity founded upon letters patent, of the United States, dated November 5, 1878, and issued to George W. McGill, the assignor of the plaintiffs, for an "imp:tavementin buckles." The invention is an improved shoe buckle, and is described by the patentee in his specification and claim as follows: "My invention has for its object an improved and simplified mode of fastening a buckle to a strap, or to such other as it may be desired to attaal). it, and oonsis.ts in hinging to the cross-bar of an ordinarily-ooIl£ltructed buokle, a metallic fastening consist. ing of a plate, having its base terminating in a central single prong, and having another prong, pierced and from its body portion, ,both the base prong and body prong being pointed and bent,down at right angles from the body of the plate in such manner that they will enter the article to which the buckle is to be attached through slits, out therein on lines parallel with e,ach other, and clamp such articles by being bent down on its other side, either toward or from each other, as will hereinafter fully appear. What I do claim and desire to secure by letters patent is the herein-described buckle,'having the fastening plate, B, constructed with the prong D from the internal position of the plate, and the prong C from the free end thereof, both being in the same'longitud. inalline, and substantially as specified." The defendants made and sold, before the filing of the bill, and after the assignment of the patent to the plaintiffs, two kinds of buckles-one, Exhibit A, identically like' the McGill buckle, except that the fastening plate wasuot hinged to a cross-bar extending across the buckle, but was hinged to twohoused journals. This is an immaterial difference, and is not claimed to be otherwise. The base of the fastening plate of the other kind of buckle (Exhibit B) terminates in a central single prong, but the plate has two prongs pierced and extending from its internal position or body. When these three prongs are bent forward, the end prong will lie upon the plate between the two internal prongs. They are not in the same longitudinal line with a reference to the sides of the
HOLMES tl. OSBORN & CHEESMAN CO.
buckle, or Of the fastening plate, but are in the same lengthwise line of strain. The proofs in the case were taken in the usual way. At the hearing, the counsel for the defendants was not present, but submitted the case on the proofs without filing a brief. My examination of the proofs leads me to the conclusion that neither the novelty nor the patentability of the McGill patent was successfully attacked. I did not examine the evidence in regard to the invention of Samuel C. Talcott, patentced July 25, 1871, inasmuch as it was not named in the answer, and seasonable objection was made to the testimony. The main point in the case is whether Exhibit B is an infringement. This question depends upon the construction which shall be given to the clau,se in the claim, which requires that both 'prongs shall be "in 'the 'same, longitudinal line." The plaintiffs contend "that the term 'l()ngitudinal Ilne' means the line of strain, and nothing more or less, because the only known longitudinal line of a is the line of strain." The defendants insist that the term. means the line with reference to the fastening plate, or to the side bars of the buckle. The shoe buckle which was in the most general use prior to the McGill invention was the one made under letters patent to Calvin Hersome, No. 157,395, dated December 1, 1874. Hersome's fastening plate is the same with McGHl's, and has two prongs, but they are at the base of the plate, on the same transverse line, and are inclined towards each other, and are not bent at right angles from the bottom of the plate. McGill's invention consisted in making the two prongs to bend at right angles from the body of the plate, and to enter the strap through slits cut therein in lines parallel to each other. Exhibit B is a slight departure from Exhibit A, but I am of the opinion that the patentee limited himself in his claim to prongs in the same longitudinal line as distinguished from the prongs of the Hersome patent, which are in the same transverse line, and that, either by inadvertence or intenv.7,no.6-43
tionally, he confined himself to prongs in the same longitudinal line with reference to the fastening plate. I give the "longitudinal line" the meaning w:hich appears to me to be the more obvious and material one. · I ,. I am, therefore, of the opinion that Exhibit B is not an iIMringement. "Le.t there be a decree for an injunction against the manufacture or sale .of articles like Exhibit A, and for an &0counting·.
.To BmG WEXll'ORD.
(District' Oourt, 8. D. NfIUJ York.
February 5, 1881.)
M.ATJlIRULS-LAOllE&-'-TAlW'iG OTHER SBoURITIE&-,-W AIVlIR ON FREIGHT MONEy&-,-LIEN OB' MASTJlIR-ExTRA WAGES-DIS1JURSEMENT&-,-MARBHALLING ASSET&-'aTTACHMENT-CoMMISSIONER'S FEEs.
>A libel was filed the English brig W. and freight for seaman's wages, thll master's. Process issued against the vessel only. The owner did not appear, and the proceeds of sale were paid into the registry. C. & Co sued in personam the master and owners for advances in a foreign port to purchase supplies, and attached the freight, which was also paid in. Several others, including C. B. & Co., libelled the ship for materials supplied. A mortgagee claiming possession, petitioned to be paid ont of the freight, as well as the proceeds of the vessel. The claims exceeded in amount the whole fund in the registry. The testimony showed that O. B. & Co. furnished supplies in April, 1877, for coppering the vessel in this port, where the owner resided; but they suffered her to leave without payment. Afterwards they took 'the'owner'S notes in payment, and SUbsequently, the notes not being paid, a second mortgage on the vessel as security. Although she retll,rned to this port several times, there was no arrest by them until they filed this libel, in July, 1880. On exception to the report of the commissioner, to whom by consent it was referred to take testimony and determine the liens, if any, their priority, Held, that, conceding C. B. & Co. had a lien, which, on the evidence, is doubtful, still the extraordinary laches shown by them, and the taking a second mortgage, indicated an intention not to rely upon their admiralty lien, if indeed such lien was not extinguished by th6 mortgage.