Page images
PDF
EPUB

Opinion of the Court.

lees; and a general appearance by them is a waiver of a citation. Alviso v. United States, 5 Wall. 824; Sage v. Railroad Co., 96 U. S. 712, 715. In No. 181 a general appearance for the appellees, T. W. Ferry, Hodgden, Elwell, Nims and E. P. Ferry, was entered in this court on January 11, 1889. As to John Bower & Co. and John F. Betz no general appearance for them has been entered in No. 181, but only, on January 14, 1889, an appearance specially for the making of the motion by them. This is not a waiver of a citation.

Under these circumstances, a citation will be issued by this court, on the appeal in No. 181 by Richardson and Day from the decree of October 8, 1883, to the appellees in that appeal who have not entered here a general appearance in No. 181, returnable at the next term of this court, unless the issuing of such citation shall be duly waived on the part of such appellees.

It is also urged, in the motion made by Thomas W. Ferry and others to dismiss the appeal in No. 181 from the decree of October 8, 1883, that this court has no jurisdiction of it, because the amount involved is not more than $5000. The ground urged is, that the amount involved, so far as that appeal by Richardson and Day is concerned, is only $2173.91, which is the amount that Day, as assignee of Richardson, was directed to pay into court as having been overpaid on his claim.

It appears by the master's report that he disallowed the claim of Richardson as pledgee or purchaser of 400 bonds other than the 200 bonds the claim to which was allowed to Richardson. The amount of money involved in the claim of Richardson and Day to these 400 bonds largely exceeds the sum of $5000. This claim is fairly brought up by their appeal from the decree of October 8, 1883, because that decree contains an express provision "that the decree of May 3, 1883, entered herein, shall stand ratified and confirmed, except as the same is changed and modified by this decree."

Moreover, the Circuit Court, by reason of the petition of Sickles and Stevens for a rehearing, and by reason of the rehearing which was had, did not lose its hold upon the fund to be distributed, nor part with its control of the cause, until

Opinion of the Court.

the decree of October 8, 1883, was made, so far as claims against the fund created by the sale of the mortgaged property were concerned. That decree contained a provision that persons having claims against such fund, whether evidenced by bonds, coupons, or otherwise, should present the same to the court within five days from the date of that decree, and that, in default thereof, the clerk should distribute to the parties the moneys in his hands.

These provisions save the appeal of Richardson and Day from the decree of October 8, 1883, as to amount, and enable them to have adjudicated by this court, on the hearing of that appeal, at least their claim in respect of the 400 bonds not allowed to them.

It is also objected, on the motion to dismiss made by Thomas W. Ferry and others, that, in the order of November 17, 1883, allowing an appeal to Richardson and Day from the decree of October 8, 1883, the appellees are not named, but it is stated only that "the other parties of said cause, original and intervening, (as appearing in the said final decree,)" are "appellees." But the bond on such appeal, filed November 28, 1883, is given to the clerk of the Circuit Court for the use and benefit of twenty-five appellees, naming them, and among them are by name the five appellees by whom the motion on that ground is made. We think the objection is not a good one. It results from these views that the appeals in No. 947, No. 1027 and No. 1074 must be dismissed; that the appeal in No. 181 from the decree of May 3, 1883, must be dismissed; ana that the motion to dismiss the appeal of Richardson and Day, in No. 181, from the decree of October 8, 1883, must be granted, unless the appellants therein shall procure to be issued and served on the appellees therein a citation from this court, in the terms before set forth, returnable at the next term thereof, provided the issuing and service of such citation shall not be duly waived; and it is ordered that such citation shall issue, if a request therefor shall be filed with the clerk.

As Richardson has died since the day these motions were argued, the order to be made will be entered nunc pro tunc, as of that day, February 4, 1889.

Opinion of the Court.

THOMPSON v. HALL.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.

No. 186. Argued March 6, 7, 1889.- Decided March 18, 1889.

[ocr errors]

Letters patent No. 232,975, granted October 5, 1880, to Henry G. Thompson, as assignee of the inventor, Moses C. Johnson, for an improvement in cutting-pliers, the claim of which is, The body, composed of the side plates, a b, the independent fulcra 2 3 4 5 for the jaw-levers and handlevers, the jaw-levers provided with cutting edges and with lips e, and the hand-levers having short arms g' h', and a prong and notch always in engagement as described, combined with the V-shaped spring, held, as described, by the lips of the jaw-levers, all as and for the purpose set forth," are invalid, because Johnson was not the first inventor of the combination claimed in the patent.

IN EQUITY for infringement of letters patent. Decree dismissing the bill. Complainant appealed. The case is stated in the opinion.

Mr. Horace Barnard for appellant.

Mr. Amos Broadnax for appellees.

MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a suit in equity, brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York, by Henry G. Thompson against Thomas G. Hall, J. F. Oliver, Samuel Leopold and David L. Harris, for the alleged infringement of letters patent No. 232,975, granted October 5, 1880, to the plaintiff, as assignee of the inventor, Moses C. Johnson, for an improvement in cutting-pliers, on an application filed June 2, 1880.

The specification, drawings and claim of the patent are as follows:

"This invention relates to cutting-pliers, and is an improvement on that class of pliers represented in United States patent

Opinion of the Court.

No. 209,677, dated November 5, 1878, granted to T. G. Hall, to which reference may be had. In that invention either of the two hand-levers may be turned on its pivot without turning the other, and the tool-body formed by the face or covering plates is permitted to vibrate, or turns more or less, with relation to the handles, and the central space between the cutting-faces of the jaw-levers, when the pliers are taken in the hand to be used, drops more or less out of line with the central line of the handles, making, as it were, a loose joint midway between the ends of the pliers.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

"One of the objects of my invention is to construct a stiff pair of pliers, or pliers in which the hand and jaw-levers shall each be compelled to move positively in an opposite direction to the movement of its fellow, or a pair of pliers in which the tool-body shall not of itself swing or vibrate upon the pins or studs holding the hand-levers.

Opinion of the Court.

"In the patent above referred to, the end of wire or other thing cut off by the cutters drops into and injures the spring that opens the jaw-levers. This I obviate by providing each jaw-lever with a lip to cover or bridge the space between the jaws, as the jaw-levers are closed.

[ocr errors]

My invention consists in the combination and arrangement of parts for effecting these ends, as hereinafter specified and claimed.

"Figure 1 represents, in side elevation, a pair of cuttingpliers containing my improvements; and Fig. 2, a like view with one of the body or side plates removed.

"The body of the pliers is composed of two side plates, a b. These side plates are fixed together by the screws 2 3 4 5. Of these screws, those 2 3 are the fulcra of the jaw-levers c d, having at their ends the usual cutters or cutting-surfaces c' d'. Each of these jaw-levers has a lip l, and the end of one meets the end of the other lip just as or just before the two cuttingedges c' d' separate the wire or other metal end to be cut off by them, thus closing the space between the said jaw-levers and side plates, in which is placed the spring f, and preventing the entrance into said space of hard pieces of wire or other articles that would clog the pliers. These lips also serve another essential purpose-viz., that of holding the ends of the spring from displacement, and obviating the employment of a separate pin or stud to hold the said spring at one end, as heretofore common.

"The screws 4 5 serve as the fulcra for the hand-levers g h, having short arms g' h', to act upon the ends of the longer arms of the jaw-levers and turn them on their fulcra to close the jaws and bring the cutting-edges together. The springf opens the jaws the instant the clasping pressure on the handlevers is relaxed.

"In order to move the jaw-levers equally at all times and prevent the jaw-levers and body of the pliers turning on the handles, I have provided one hand-lever with a prong m, having a rounded end that enters a rounded notch in the opposite lever. This one prong and its notch are always in engagement, and so connect the two levers that the body of the pliers

« PreviousContinue »