Opinion of the Court.

to be set aside were good as between the parties, and only void as to creditors; and as the appellee, by the reversal of his decree ceased to be a creditor, his bill to have the conveyances set aside had no longer any ground to stand on. A supplemental proceeding of some kind, therefore, would have been the right of the defendant, the present appellant.

But as the case had been removed to this court by appeal before that decree of reversal was rendered, such a proceeding was out of his power. Nor could it be taken in this court, where the case was pending on appeal, for this court cannot entertain proceedings that require the exercise of original jurisdiction, except in the few cases pointed out in the Constitution.

The only course which can be properly pursued is to remand the cause to the Circuit Court, with instructions to allow the appellant to file a supplemental bill, in the nature of a bill of review, or a bill to suspend or avoid the operation of the decree, according to the mode pointed out by Lord Redesdale in his work on Equity Pleading. He says, on page 86: "But if a case were to arise in which the new matter discovered could not be evidence of any matter in issue in the original cause, and yet clearly demonstrated error in the decree, it should seem that it might be used as ground for a bill of review, if relief could not otherwise be obtained." And on page 95 he says: "5. The operation of a decree signed and enrolled has been suspended in special circumstances, or avoided by matter subsequent to the decree, upon a new bill for that purpose;" and he gives an instance occurring in the time of Charles II. These views are adopted by Mr. Justice Story in his work on Equity Pleading. See § 415 and note; and § 428. We do not decide what precise form such a proceeding should take: the appellant will be advised by his counsel in this regard.

The appellee, in opposition to the appellant's motion, has produced the certificates of the marshal of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan, showing that, on the 10th day of December, 1884, he sold the property in dispute, or some part thereof, to certain persons, under the execution issued upon the decree in the case of Anson Searls v. Alva Worden and John S. Worden, (which was reversed by this court,

Syllabus.

as before stated,) and that the purchasers would be entitled to a deed of said lands, and the sales would become absolute at the expiration of fifteen months, unless previously redeemed as prescribed by the statute of Michigan.

It is possible that these sales may complicate the inquiry to be made by the court upon the supplemental proceedings of the appellant; but we do not see that they can preclude such proceedings. It is not shown that the purchasers have advanced any money on the faith of the purchases; and it is possible that the appellant can show that they were made for the benefit of the appellee; in either case, the sales would be liable to be set aside on the reversal of the decree. Should the Circuit Court deem it proper to require that the purchasers be made parties to the supplemental proceedings, the facts of the case could be fully elicited, and right could be done without prejudice to any of the parties.

Our decision is that the cause be remanded to the Circuit Court, with instructions to allow the appellant, defendant below, to file such supplemental bill as he may be advised, in the nature of a bill of review, or for the purpose of suspending or avoiding the decree, upon the new matter arising from the reversal of the decree in the former case of Anson Searls v. Alva Worden and John S. Worden, and that such proceedings be had thereon as justice and equity may require: And it is so ordered.

COLLINS COMPANY v. COES.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS.

No. 164. Argued January 10, 11, 1889. - Decided March 5, 1889.

The first claim in reissued letters patent No. 5294, granted February 25, 1873, to the Collins Company, as assignee of Lucius Jordan and Leander E. Smith, for an improvement in wrenches, was only the application to the bar of the Coes wrench, (which was an existing patented invention

Statement of the Case.

at the date of the alleged invention of Jordan and Smith,) for the purpose of securing and supporting the step, and resisting the strain of a nut already in use on the Hewitt or Dixie wrench; and as such it lacks the novelty of invention requisite to support a patent within the recent decisions of this court; and this conclusion is not affected by the fact that in complainant's wrench the screw-rod of the Coes wrench is availed of instead of the screw-sleeve of the Dixie wrench.

The second claim in said reissue is for "the nut F, combined with the wrench-bar, and interiorly recessed at d, for the purpose set forth.” Some years later the patentee filed in the Patent Office a disclaimer thereto "except when said recessed nut and wrench-bar are in combination with the handle G, the step or step-plate E, the screw-rod C, and the movable jaw B of the wrench, substantially as is shown and described in said last mentioned reissued letters patent," being the reissue in question; Held, that whether this qualified disclaimer was or was not effectual, it was, in view of the fact that the screw-rod and movable jaw of the patent had no different effect from the screw-sleeve and movable jaw of the prior Dixie wrench upon the other parts of the combination, an admission that the second claim of the patent is void for want of novelty.

The third claim of the patent is also void for want of novelty.

IN EQUITY. follows:

The court in its opinion stated the case as

The Collins Company of Connecticut, a corporation located at Collinsville, in the county of Hartford and State of Connecticut, brought this suit in equity in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts, against Loring Coes and Melvin O. Whittier, partners in business at Worcester, in Worcester County, Massachusetts, in the name and style of Loring Coes & Company, for the alleged infringement of reissued letters patent No. 5294, dated February 25, 1873, for an improvement in wrenches, issued to the Collins Company as assignee of Lucius Jordan and Leander E. Smith, said reissued letters patent being based upon original letters patent dated October 10, 1865, No. 50,364. There had also been a reissue February 22, 1870.

The specification and accompanying drawings of the reissue No. 5294 are as follows:

"The object of this invention is the prevention of end thrust or back pressure on the wooden handles of wrenches, which has heretofore availed to quickly destroy such wooden handles,

"The letter A indicates the wrench-bar, flat-sided down to the under side of the step E, and from thence downward cylindrical or of other convenient shape, so as to take upon it the wooden handle G. B is the movable jaw. The letter C indicates the screw-rod, and D the rosette by which it is turned. The letter E indicates the step, in which is the bearings for the lower end of the screw-rod, and also the hole a to admit the bar A, and fitting up against the shoulder b. On the bar A, just below the step E, is cut the screw-thread i, on which screws the nut F, forming a projection from the wrench-bar, on which rests the step E, and thus transmits the back pressure put upon the step directly to the wrench bar at the place

Statement of the Case.

and, in destroying the handles, has left the working parts of the wrench which depended upon the handles for support without such support, so as to injure and effectually impair their working qualities and efficiency, and is accomplished by so connecting the step which forms a bearing for the lower end of the screw-rod with the bar which forms the main part of the wrench that the back pressure upon the step by the screw-rod will be directly transmitted to the wrench-bar at the place of connection therewith, and will not be transmitted to and mainly put upon the wooden handle.

"Figure 1 is a side view of the whole wrench, the part below the dotted line xx being in section. Fig. 2 is a top or plan view of the step which forms a bearing for the lower end of the screw-rod.

Fig. 1.

EC

Statement of the Case.

of connection therewith, and thus relieves the wooden handle therefrom, the connection of the step with the bar being made in such manner that the step may be removed or taken off the bar without any cutting or abrasion of parts.

"The nut not only supports the step, but can be made to rigidly fasten the step to the bar by screwing it firmly up against the step, so as to gripe it between itself an. the shoulder b, thus giving the nut, so to speak, a double office, viz., that of supporting the step, and, also, that of fastening it rigidly to the bar. The nut is interiorly recessed at d, for the purpose of forming a ferrule for the top of the wooden handle.

"Heretofore the part designed to perform the office of the step E has rested directly on the wooden handle, which was secured upon the bar by a light nut o, at the lower extremity of the bar, which is the present method of fastening on the handle.

"It is known that, previous to this invention, steps have been forged or otherwise produced solid with the bar, and this became as much a part of it as the solid head at extremity of bar, and also by riveting to reach similar result; but such method, by making a permanent fastening, renders it impossible, or a work of great difficulty, to displace the step in order to remove the sliding jaw for repairs. It will be observed that, while Jordan and Smith's method of fastening is as firm as the permanent fastenings last above referred to, their step can readily be removed and again put in place at pleasure.

"It is believed that Smith and Jordan were the first to secure easy divisibility of step and bar, together with a fixed or stationary step when in position, and at the same time supporting the step when in position immediately by the bar, and not immediately through the handle, as the manner had been.

"As a matter of definition, the Jordan and Smith method of fastening and supporting the step when in position is denominated removable' hereinafter in contradistinction from a connection and support made by forging or otherwise producing the step in one solid piece with the bar, and, therefore, a part of it, or by riveting it thereto, or the like.