Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/350

S36 FBDEBAL BBPOBTEB. �John Detichfield; that it had been surrendered and cancelled, and that a new patent bas been ordered to issue to "him." The plaintiff has put in evidence a certificate of extension •which states that on the petition of John Deuchfield for the extension of the patent granted to him April 20, 1858, and re-issued January 16, 1872, it is extended for seven years from April 20, 1872. An original patent is in evidence which was granted to John Denchfield, Apiil 20, 1858, for 14 years from that day; and there is no dispute that that is the patent which was surrendered when the re-issued patent to John Dewchfield was granted, and that no original patent was granted to John Dewchfield unless the one so granted to John Denchfield was one. The real name of the man was Dewch- field. The mistake was clearly one made in the patent office — a clerical and accidentai mistake in taking the letter n to be the letter u. �The defendants did not, at any stage of the taking of the proofs in the cause, raise any question as to the identity of the person to whom the re-issue was granted with the original patentee, either when the documentary proofs were being put in or when the oral testimony was being taken. In the defendants proofs the questions to their witnesses, and the answers thereto, refer to the re-issue as having been granted to John Derechfield, and as having been granted to the same person to whom the patent of April 20, 1858, was granted. If the point had then been suggested doubtless the plaintiff would bave proved, in fact, the identity of John Deitchiield with John Denchfield. Such identity seems to bave been shown va. Herring v. Nelson, the evidence in which case is made part of this case by stipulation and notice. The ques- tion is one of identity merely. Panes v. Whitbread, 11 C. B. 406; Jackson v. Boneham, 15 John. 226; Jackson v. Cody, 9 Cow. 140. The defendants gave no evidence to show that there was any such person as John Deuchûeld, or that the re-issue was not intended to be issued, or was not, in fact, isBued, to the same person to whom the original patent was granted. Indeed, there is safficient in the proofs, in the evidence given bj the plaintiff as a witness, to show that the ����