unrecorded deed from her, or equitable owuer upon an agreemerit with his wife for building on the lots for his own benefit, either of which would not have been an uncommon circnmstance. The conveyance to James C. Meade, iIi 1875, is alleged to have been made after all the debts alleged in the Mmplaint were incurred, without consideration, and with intent to complicate and embarrass still further any resort to this property by creditors; and it· was received by him, as the bill states, in aid and furtherance of the fraudulent scheme therein previously set forth. Such a grantee man., ifestly acquires no equities and· no new rights against prior creditors; and all these creditors were prior to that conveyance. He is not a. bona fide purchaser or encumbrancer; and to such only do the cases cited by the defendant apply. The deed to him, therefore, constitutes no impediment to the pfaintiff's recovery. The demurrer must be overruled, with liberty to the defendants to answer within 20 days.
MEYER and another v. MAXHEIMER.
(Circuit Court, 8. D. Nf//J) York. October 6, 1881.)
1. LETTERS PATENT-REISSUES-INVALIDITY. A. reissue that covers more than the original, (apparently so as to embrace intervening inventions of others,) is invalid. 2. SAllE-WIRE CAGES. , Reissued letters patent No. 8,694, for an improvement in wire cages, consistinp; of an invention of a cage held in shape by the fitting of crimps in the wires to holes in the cross bands, while that in the original is of a cage held in shape bV the locking of loops on the Wires through Illots in the cross bands,are invalid, the inventions being essentially different.
J. Van Sa,ntvoMd, for complainants.
Arthttr v. Briesen, for defendant. WHEELER, D. J. This suit is brought upon letters patent No. 139,784, granted to Michael Grebner, June 10, 1873, and reissued to the plaintiffs, February 25, 1879, in No. 8,594, for an improvement in wire cages. Among the defences set up is one that the reissue is for a different invention from that in the original patent. The original patent was for a cage having the horizontal bands provided with slots, through which loops formed outwardly on the upright wires were placed and held by a locking bar, extending around the cage out-
side the band and through the loops, making a firm and durable connection between the bands and wire.s. After that and before the reissue cages were invented and brought into use having their horizontal,bands made tubular, of sheet metal, with holes above and below, through which the upright wires were placed, having bands like loops extending outwardly within, the hollow bands to form a connection between the wires and bands, The reissue is for a cage having horizontal bands of sheet metal or other suitable material provided with holes that engage with the vertical filling wires, which have loops Of crimps that fit the holes and effectually prevent the vertical displacement of the horizontal band, and a locking-bar like that in the original to prevent either of the filling wires from being pressed in so as to disengage its crimps from the cross or horizontal band. The first claim is for the combination'in a cage of filling wires provided with "holes, provided with loops or crimps, and adapted to engage with the loops or crimps, There is nothing in the original patent about the engagement of the loops with the slots otherwise than by being h!.,ld together by the locking bar. The loops shown in the drawing are not shaped to, of themselves, hold the cross-band in place. The connection between the bands and the wires depended wholly upon the locking-bar. 'rhe combination mentioned in the first claim of the reissue would p,ot be an operative combination at all with the pai·ts made only as described in the original. The invention sought to be covered by the reissue is of a cage held in shape by the fitting of crimps in the wires to holes ·in the cross-bands, while that in the original is of a cage held in shape' by the locking of. loops' on the wires through slots in the cross-bands. These inventions are essentially different. The reissue was, apparently, expanded beyond the original to cover the intervening inventions of others. The language of the supreme court in Swain Turbine d; Manuf'g Co. v, Ladd, 19 O. G. 62, seems peculiarly applicable to this case. It is said there that the statute was never intended to allow a patent to be enlarged except in a clear case of mistake, and that there is no safe or just rule but that which confines a reissue patent to the same invention which was described or indicated in the original. This reissue seeks to enlarge the inven. tion, as well as the patent, and is not supported by the original. Let there be a decree that the reissued patent is invalid, and that the bill of complaint be dismissed, with costs.
ZANE and another v. PECK BROTHERS & Co.
(Circuit Court, D. Connecticut.
June 25, 1881.)
LE'l'TElU! PATENT-SEI,F-OLOSING FAUCETS-INFRINGEMENT-ANTICIPATION.
Letters patent for an improvement in self-closing faucets, granted June 27, 1865, to Nathaniel Jenkins, are infringed by a faucet differing from the device used by D'Este & 00. only in the particular that what was in that device a swivel, is in this an extension of the screw follower; but not anticipated by tlte French patent granted to Samyand Lenormand, in 1861, in whose device the valve can be aided in being drawn to its seat by turning the screw in the opposite direction from that required to throw the valve from its seat, while the complainant's patent has a loose jOlllt, i. e" a joint in which the parts act upon each other 'by a pushing motion, and not by pulling, between the swivel and the valve.
The proof must be clear to show that an old patent upon an article used in every-day life, and which has 'long been in demand by the public, was anticipated by an article made in the city of New York 23 years before the knowledge of such anticipation was ascertained.
Thos. William Clarke, for plaintiff. M. B. Philipp and Charles R. Ingersoll, for defendant. SHIPMAN, D. J. This is a bill in equity to restrain the defendant from the alleged infringement of two letters patent-one granted June 27, 1865, to Nathaniel Jenkins; and the other, reissue No. 7,571, granted March 27, 1877, to Francis Roach, assignor to the plaintiffs. The original was dated September 8, 1868. Each patent is owned by the plaintiffs, and is for an improved self-closing faucet. ' The validity of the Jenkins patent was sustained by Judge in the district of Massachusetts, in the suit of the plaintiffs against D'Este,Mc,!\enzie & Bate. The plaintiffs then bro,ught a bill in equity in this district against the present defendants, alleging the use of the same device which had been held by Judge Shepley to be an infringement. The' defendant was a licensee of D'Este & Co. Infringement was here admitted, and the validity of the patent was again sustained. The Jenkins invention was described in the opinion, in the lastmentioned case, as follows:
"The invention consisted in opening a self-closing faucet by means of a quick-threaded screw follower, the threads of which are inclined at so great a pitch that when the power to turn the screw is removed, the pressure of the water, and of a spiral spring under the valve, forces the valve to its seat, where it is held by the pressure of the water. The specification says that another part of the invention consisted in combining with the valve and screw-follower a swivel, so that the rotatory movement of the spindle shall not be