Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/425

PDXNAM ». TINKHAM. 411 �reduced to 30 per cent, on the balance, which I am by no means prepared to admit, yet a mistake of this kind wcald not enure to the benefit of Burchell's estate; and on that theory there ceased to be any connection between the obliga- tion of Burchell and that of Bigler after June 12th. If, how- ever, Burchell's obligation did not extinguish any part of Big- ler's original debt, but was collateral thereto, then accepting a composition from the principal debtor doea not discharge any party coUaterally liable for the same debt. The payment •was a settlement of a claim for a composition about which there was some little question as to the amount that should be paid, and its legal effect as a payment cannot be held to be greater than would that of the payment of any composi- tion. �For these reasons I think the obligation of the bankrupt bas not been discharged, and the claim must be allowed. ���PUTNAM V. TiNKHAM. {Circuit Court, D. ConneetieiU. October 23, 1880.) �1. Rb-Issdb — Identitt of iHTKNTroN. — Re-issued letters patent for an improved bottle stopper, granted December 23, 1879, to Henry W. Putnam, assignes of Joël B. Miller, hdd void, because it appeared on itg face to be for a different invention from that which was embraced in the original patent. �Arthur v. Briesen, for plaîntîff. �E. A. West, for defendant. �Shipman, D. J. This is a bill in equity, based upon the alleged infringement of re-issued letters patent for an im- proved bottle stopper, which Were granted on December 23, 1879, to Henry W. Putnam, assignee of Joël B. Miller, de- ceased. The original patent to Miller was dated October 27, 1874. �The invention described in the re-issued patent is a bottle stopper, which is placed within the bottle to close the mouth from below. A spring bail and haridle are permanently at- ����