Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/531

THE COLLINS CO. V. COES. 51 'i �against the breech-plate carrying the rear ends of the barrels. The hooks being thus in position against the breech-plate, the revolution of the barrela brings the shell last diseharged within the grasp of the hooks, they forcing themselves between the flange of the cartrid^e and breech, thereby loosening the shell to that extent. When the tappet described, in the course of its revo- lution, again operates rearwardly the extractor bar, the hooks on the end of the latter withdraw the shell completely from the barrel, and a tumbler hung to the f rame and operated by a projection on the extractov bar disdhai-ges the shell from the grasp of the hooks, allowing it to fall to t!ie ground. In the Gatling gun the extractor hook is attached to the plunger, which forms the breech doser and snaps over the flange of the cartridge during the operation of driving the cartridge into the rear of the barrel. The extractor hook retains its position during the flring and for some time subsequently, until the plunger commences its rearward motion, carrying backward with it the hook and the shell in its grasp. ihe shell is either freed by its own action and falls to the ground, or is ejected by a plate with which it cornes in contact, and, tipped out of the grasp of the hook, falls to the ground." �There is no infringemeut, and the bill is dismissed. ���The ColIjIns Go. v. CoEfs and others. �{Circuit Vourt, D. Massachusetts. May 21, 1881.) �1. Re-Issub No. 5,294— Impuovement in Monkby Weenches — Petition to Va- �OATB Degbeb akd Reopen Cause. �A petition to vacate decree sustaining re-isaued letters patent No. 5,294, granted February 25, 1873, to Lucius Jordan and Leander E. Smith, for im- provement in monkey wrenches, and to allow the defendant to set up by a supplemental answer that Jordan was the sole inventer of the improvement, refused. �2. Petition to Rbopen Cause — Supplkmeittai, Answbk — NBWLY-DrscovEiiED �Dbfbnce. �Upona petition for leave to reopen a cauae, and to flle a supplemental answer setting up a newly-discovered defence, after final liearing and decree, the evi- dence must be clearly such as would have availed the defendants if introduced on final hearing. Where, in such a case, the defence sought to be introduced was that a joint patent was the sole invention of one of its patentees, the affl- davit of such patentee that he was the sole inventer, and of others that he claimed to them to be the sole inventer, lield, not to be such proof as would warrant the court in reopening the cause and admitting such defence. �In Equity. �B.F. Thurston and W. E. Simonds, for complainants. �Oeo. L. Robert$ and Thomas H. Dodge, for defendants. �LffWELL, C. J. An interlocutory decree was entered in this cause, Bome months since, that certain of the claims of the patent sued on, which was re-issue No. 5,294 of patent No. 50,364, granted to Lucius ��� �