FEDERAL REPOR'1'ER.
UNITED STATES t1. BERGENTHAL. f
(Diab'ict Oourt, E. D. Pennsylvania. December 18, 1886.) '·1;
INTEmq'AL REVENUE-BoND OF INDEMNITy-JUDGMENT.
. The goods of A. were seized for a.breach of the revenue laws. He gave a bond conditioned to abide the judgment of the court, and pay the amount named therein, or the appraised value of the goods, upon condemnation. He was convicted of the criminal olfense which caused the seizure, and subsequently pardoned. In So proceeding to condemn the goods, the pardon was pleaded as So full and sufficient to the claim. This was denied, and a . judgment of condemnation entered.A. did not comply with the judgment of the court, and pay tbe amount of money required, and judgment was conse· quently entered upon the bond. 'Defendant moved to open the judgment on the ground that the court erred in denying the sufficiency of the pardon. Held, that that question could not be raised in a suit upon the bond, and that while the judgment of condemnation stands unsatisfied, the obligation to pay is ab· solute, and cannot be avoided.
Sur Motion to openjudgment, and let the defendant into a defense. John K. Valentine, U. S. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff. David W. seUers, for defendant.. . BUTJ.ER, J. The object of the bond of the petitioner was the release of the property seized, and the substitution for it of the money secured. The condition of the bond is that the principal, Bergenthal, shall abide the judgment of the court, and, on condemnation of the property, shall forthwith pay the money secured by. the bond, or the appraised value of the property condemned. This condition was broken. The property was condemned,and Bergenthal did not abide the judgment of the {lourt, and pay the money required. Judgment was consequentlye1;1tered on the bond in pursuance of the authority accompanying it. The petitioner now seeks relief, principally on the ground (in effect) that the property should not have been condemned; that the pardon granted Bergenthal for the. criminal offense of which he was convicted in the lltate of Wisconsin (and on account of which ,the property was seized and the condemnation claimed) was a full and sufficient answer to the claim. This answer was,however, set up as a defense in the forfeiture proceed. ings, was fully considered by the court, and its sufficiency denied. It is how urgedthaUhis decision was erroneous,-shown to be $0 by more recent decisions of the courts. It, would seem quite plain, however, that the question could hot be raised in a suit upon the bond, and cannot, therefore, .properly be considered in this application. The remedy for such error, if it existed, was by review in the circuit court. While the judgment of forfeiture stands unsatisfied, the petitioner's obligation to pay is absolute, and cannot be avoided. The judgment cannot be attacked collaterally. The alleged understanding and expectation with which the bond Wal signed, based upon conversations with the collector or others, could not I
Reported by C. Berkeley Taylor, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.
STILES V.RICE.
445
be heard as a defense to the bond, and consequently. cannot be considered here. The petitioner was dealing with the government, and his contract is writt.en in the bond. This contract can neither be diminished nor enlarged by anything that may have been said respecting its object or or the subsequent disposition of the property or course of proceeding. Neither fraud nor mistake'is alleged. The contract, as we have seen, requires payment on condemnation of the property, (no matter for what cause condemned,}and failure of Bergenthal to satisfy the Judgment. The circumstnnce that the property released was immediately again seized for taxes due byBergenthal elsewhere is not important. It was released in pursuance of the retsof the parties, and in consequence of the bond; but was immediately reseized on account of the indebtedness referred to, and applied to relief in that respect. Of this seizure and application of the property neither BergenthaI nor the petitioner can -complain. The petitioner's disappointment, from failure to obtain control of it, as he expected, no matter how the expectation· arose, constitntes no answer to the government's claim on the bond. ' The rule must be discharged.
STI.LES,
v.
RICE
and others.
(Oircuit (Jowrt, D MD,88achuBettB. January 18, 1887.) PA'flIlI(T8:!'OR,INVENTIOl!liS....,RETSSUE No. 2,542--CJ,AIM BROADER THAN Oll.IGINAL , -,OMIllSlqN OF LIMITINq ELEMENTS. Held that the first claim of reissued patent No. 2,542, issued April 2, 1867, to
, Norman C. Stiles, for metal punch, is invalid by reason of making a broader Claim by, omitting two of the limiting elements of the original patent, (No. 41,40a, dated January 24;, 1864,) viz., the pitman to which the adjusting pitmanJ's attached, and the clamp 'by which the eccentnc is held in place.
Action. at law to recover damages for the infringement of letters patent. J. L; S. Roberts, for complainant. J. E.Maynadier, for defendant. CARPENTER, J. In my consideration of this case I have had occasion to examine three questions. The first relates to the validity of the reissued patent on which. the action is brought; and this question must be d:etermined in accordance with the finding on the subsidiary question whether the reissue can bear the narrow construction for which the plaintiff contends. The second question is whether, assuming the plaintiff's construction of the patent; there be patentable novelty in the invention. These questions have been argued with much learning and forclil, and .with' the· assistance' of ingenious statements of expert witnesses. The ,eonsiderationBf the case has occupied more time than would have been earlier reached a conclusion on the single point; on .:whieb, I:amnow satisfied',' the case must be decided.