Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/299

284 FEDBEAL BBPOBTER. �ment of receiver in the Schroeder foreclosure, that not being to the benefit of the creditors, but opposed tliereto; preparing and filing defendant's bond as assignee ; advice as to the effect of the injunc- tion in bankruptcy, and services in this suit. These subjects form by far the greater part of all those specified by the attorney. The re- maining items embrace several collection suits, advice concerning disputed claims, and negotiations and arrangements concerning liti- gations which were of a professional character and beneficiai to the creditors. The evidence is not sufficiently explicit to enable me to estimate with exactness the value of the services last referred to ; but having examined caref ully all the testimony in regard to them, and allowing a liberal sum for each, I find the aggregate will not exoeed the Bum of $500, to which amount the complainant's coiinsel claims that these charges should be reduced, and that sum is accordingly allowed. The master's report passes the account as of December 37, 1878. By the testimony it appears that the balance of $20,663.07, then in the respondent's hands, had been paid over to the complainant prior to the report. A final decree should be prepared in accordance with this decision, which may be settled on two days' notice before me, if the parties do not agree. ���Kells V. MoKenzib and othera. �{Circuit Court, E. D. Michigan. November 7, 1881.) �1. Letthiis Patent — Scopb op Reissubs. �A reissued patent is not valid for everything which raight have been claimed in the original patent, nor does its validity depend wholly upon the fact that the new features attempted to be socHred tliereby wcrc suggested in the mod- els, drawings, or specifications of the original patent. �Hence, where a patentee, in his specifications, claims as Iiis invention a par- ticular part of a machine, and his claims are all limited to that part, a reissue embracing other and distinct portions of the machine is not for the same in- vention, and is pro tantoxoia, although the designs accompanying the original patent show all the features contained in the reissue. �2. Brick Machinb— Kbisrde— Invaliditt. �The first four claims of reissued patent No. 8,8C7, to Philip H. Kells, for an improvement in brick machines, are void for the reasou that they eularge the scope of the original patent. �3. Same — Samb— Anticipation. �Beissued patent No. 8,127, to Philip H. Kells, for an improvement in brick machines, is also void, because a machine embodying the invention thereiii claimed was "on sale" more than two years before the application for the original patent was filed. �In Equity. ��� �