842
FEnERAL REPORTER.
is held in Qlaytonv. Johnson, Bupra, and is 'the doctrine of most of the courts which maintain'the validity of such a stipulation. "It is held," Mr. Burrin, "almost withont exception, that such a stipulation iii 'art assignment of part of a. debt.or's property is fraudulent." Burr. Assignm. {4th Ed.j 273; The deed, therefore, stipulating for a reloase and conveying only a part of the debtor's property, is fraudulent and void. It imparted no title to'the assignee as" against an attaching creditor, and justifietl the plaintiffs in attaching the a,Bsignor. The conclusion arrived at in this point is decisive of the case, and renders it unnecessary to decide the other questions so ably argued by counsel.
'...
LOOK,MANuF'a Co. v. SOOVILL . l:fA.wJ"a Co. ,.,. ',' . . . ' .
'.
.,"
f;
.,
(Oircutt Oourt, D. qonnecticut. February 15,188'3.) I 'i'ii
PA'l'ENT8-VIOLATIQNOP !INJUNCTION.
The plaintiff's mQtion for an attachment against the defendant for vlQlation of an injunctiQn restraining the defendant from the infringement of plaintiff's compel Qbedience of thetnaster's order to file an account of the articles which Il,l'e fhll,subject of the motion fQr an attachment, and which have been made since the service Qf theinjunctiQn order, llenied, on the ground that , articlecQmplained of is not an infringement. " '
Frederick H. Betts and Causten; Browne, for plaintiff. R. Ingersoll, for defendant. SHIPMAN,J. These are two motions: 'one for an attachment against the defendant on account· of the alleged violation of an injunction order of this court, which restrained the defendant from the infringement of the first ands6cond claims of reissued letters patent, No. 8,783, dated July 1, 1879, for an improvement in post.office boxes; and the other, to compel obedience to an order of the master directing the defendant ,to file an account of the post-office boxes which are the subject of the motion for an attachment, and which have been made since the service of the injunction . The .opinion of the court upon the final hearing describes the plaintiff's and the de. fendant's structures which were in controversy, and construes the reissued patent. 18,Blat¢hf. C.C.248j [B.a. 3 FED. REP. Thedefendant/s new boxes are made as before, except that the top, bottom, ftnd sides of each box are separated from the corre'i Charles l
YA.LE LOCK MANU:r.'(i;CO.V.
MANUF'G
CO.
343,
sponding parts·of adjacent,boxes;;byAhin 'strips of wo,od, About an eighth of an inch wide,,;whiQ.pareno,teovered ,by metal. ,'Each box, has thu8,.itsow.n metal ,front, and, is 'disconnected from '.every ot4er box by an unprotected strip i of The: 'metallic covering, of .any one box does not join the metallic caveringof any other box: ' As iq the original infringing boxes, the sides of each box, near: its aTe protected by a metallic casing or flange. At first sight, this new series seems to be an unsubstantial alteration of the infringing of being a fruitless at· boxes, and to be justly liableto the tempt to evade the patent. A more careful examination of the subject has led me to another cOriclusio:tl. ,I The first and,brpadest claim of t4e .:reissue is for substantially as specified, of a series of metallic door-frames and doors with a series Of wooden pigeon-holes, Whereby aseries!ot post· office boxes with a continuous metallic frontage is formed.", fla,4ntiff's frames are made with flanges ,t4,e, wliole wOQa'en front is covered with a metallic {iontjor, In the language of the spocifi¢ation, "when all the frames are in place, cOJ;ltinuous f;rollt. of tpe senes of boxes.." The defendantlg :(irst nrlrmgmg boxes were a serIes of:ceparate bemg So a cQntmuoU8 was formed., ,'A C,ontil;lUoUS metallic D;tean wlthout' cracks at the i whlCh should be lDserted at, sides()f to each sigeArpm, a patented lDve,ntlon.. the, Janguage of, the 'plam,tlfI's' expert" the metallic frontage is 't()be lb'ontiri UOTIS' to effect the 1he. suriage lctflscribed ill the ;?y one so practlCally contlDuous as to, substantIally effect: tliepurpose de-
by
'"',,
,t'
Theqpestl?n ;the' fa({t, ,opiuion that the deferlJant"s :;not practically 'itnoii of the sides, the metallic frontage would not cause security, but the wooden partitions or strips of wood would be an element of weakness. 'rhe continuity of the metallic frontage is substantially interrupted by the wooden strips which separate the boxes from each other, if the Yale boxes were separated in the manner of the new. Scovill boxes and W'ithout the metallic sheathing upon the front part of the
anAl am: of
'J)'
. ! l)
,