120 Cockrill, 92 Fed. 817 (affirming S. C., 79 Fed. 149), Burling v. New- Equity rule, as to laches, applies peculiarly where principals or witnesses have died, p. 250. Approved in Dugan v. O'Donnell, 68 Fed. 993, in absence of clear proof good faith will be presumed; Burling v. Newlands, 112 Cal. 502, 44 Pac. 818, concurring opinion, where was acquiescence for ten years while one party lived; Melms v. Pabst Brewing Co., 93 Wis. 173, 57 Am. St. Rep. 911, 66 N. W. 524, where heirs acquiesced in sale for more than twenty years. Equity. Each case of laches must be governed by its own circumstances, p. 250. Reaffirmed in Halstead v. Grinnan, 152 U. S. 416, 38 L. 497, 14 S. Ct. 643. Approved in Naddo v. Bardon, 51 Fed. 498, 4 U. S. App. 642, seventeen years after execution sale is too late to attack judgment as void, though plaintiff was abroad ten years; Bruner v. Finley, 187 Pa. St. 406, 41 Atl. 340, delay for fifteen years to enforce trust is laches. Distinguished in McIntire v. Pryor, 173 U. S. 57, 19 S. Ct. 359, where gross fraud was practiced. Trustee's purchase, in his own behalf, is only voidable, and may be confirmed by parties interested, p. 251. Approved in Hoyt v. Latham, 143 U. S. 568, 36 L 265, 12 S. Ct. 573, one cannot delay till property. advances and thus reap benefit of sale. See 63 Am. St. Rep. 475, note. Equity. Bill must state clearly acts of fraud and when discovered, p. 251. Approved in Root v. Woolworth, 150 U. S. 414, 37 L 1126, 14 S. Ct. 140, Whitney v. Fox, 166 U. S. 648, 41 L. 1149, 17 S. Ct. 717, ANN Eiffert v. Craps, 58 Fed. 473, 8 U. S. App. 436, and M’Monagle v. M'Glinn, 85 Fed. 92, to escape laches bill should explain delay; Hardt v. Heidweyer, 152 U. S. 560, 38 L. 552, 14 S. Ct. 674, bill should show how and when knowledge of fraud was obtained. Trusts.- Cestui's laches, in attacking trustee's purchase, can be excused only by showing actual hindrance, p. 252. Trust account cannot be opened after twenty years, especially in absence of allegations of fraud, p. 262. Equity. Acknowledgment by justice ought to prevail, after his death, over grantor's testimony years after deed executed, p. 271. Equity. Where actual fraud is not proved and persons accused are dead equity will apply, rule as to laches, p. 274. Approved in Ware v. Galveston Co., 146 U. S. 116, 36 L. 910, 13 S. Ct. 38, where was delay of thirty-five years without explanation; M'Monagle v. M'Glinn, 85 Fed. 94, statute of limitations is enforced where cestui delays twelve years without explanation; Goodson v. Goodson, 140 Mo. 217, 41 S. W. 740, where widow of partner delayed three years in suing for accounting; De Manderfield v. Field, 7 N. Mex. 26, 32 Pac. 149, where imputations of fraud against deceased partner were based on vague evidence, and correct balance could not be struck. Miscellaneous.- Cited in Wood v. Fox, 8 Utah, 401, 32 Pac. 52, statute begins to run when trustee repudiates trust, and cestui has notice. 143 U. S. 275-292, 36 L. 154, THE BARBED-WIRE PATENT. Patents. Reissue is void so far as it is extension of original; but original is not affected, p. 280. Approved in Thomson, etc., Electric Co. v. Elmira, etc., Ry., 71 Fed. 404, 38 U. S. App. 55, inventor, by describing an invention in a patent, is not precluded from afterwards patenting it, especially where application is pending; Palmer v. John E. Brown Mfg. Co., 84 Fed. 457, subsequent patent for application of patentee's invention to special use is void; Thomson, etc., Electric Co. v. Winchester, etc., Ry., 71 Fed. 206, arguendo, prior issue of subsidiary patent does not invalidate generic patent; Thomson, etc., Electric Co. v. Ohio Brass Co., 80 Fed. 725, 726, 54 U. S. App. 26, 29, arguendo, patent for improvement granted, pending application for broad invention, does not invalidate latter. Patents. Date of application, not of patent, determines legal effect of patents to same inventor, p. 281. Patents.- Glidden cannot claim use of plain or twisted wires or barbs or continuation thereof, p. 281. Approved in Thomson v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 53 Fed. 253, 10 U. 8. App. 500, arguendo. 143 U. S. 275-292 Notes on U. S. Reports. 122 Patents.- Courts will sustain patent to inventor who has taken last step resulting in success, p. 282. Approved in Electrical Accumulator Co. v. New York, etc., R. Co., 50 Fed. 83, perforations in plate of secondary battery, to contain active material, is patentable, though but slight change; Holloway v. Dow, 54 Fed. 516, applying rule to simple device in log carriage; Sayre v. Scott, 55 Fed. 975, 3 U. S. App. 643, applying rule to position of knife in fruit-parer; Consolidated, etc., Shoe Co. v. Detroit, etc., Spring Co., 59 Fed. 909, applying rule to railway-brake shoe, made to bear on portions of wheel not worn in rolling; Holtzer v. Consolidated, etc., Mfg. Co., 60 Fed. 750, ap plying rule to galvanic battery; Kilmer Mfg. Co. v. Griswold, 62 Fed. 124, applying principle to improvement in bale-ties; Griswold v. Harker, 62 Fed. 393, 27 U. S. App. 122, applying principle to waffle iron with hinge on pivot of rotation; Beach v. American, etc., Mach. Co., 63 Fed. 602, applying rule to angular dies displacing flat dies to make paper-box corners; Stahl v. Williams, 64 Fed. 124, applying principle to distribution of heat in incubator; Goldie v. Diamond, etc., Iron Co., 81 Fed. 175, applying principle to shape of railroad spikes; Mast v. Dempster, etc., Mfg. Co., 82 Fed. 335. 49 U. S. App. 520, principle applied to substitution of internal toothed spur-wheel for external toothed spur-gear in windmill; Western Electric Co. v. Home Tel. Co., 85 Fed. 656, principle applied to switch-board for telephone exchange; Western Electric Co. v. Capital, etc., Tel. Co., 86 Fed. 776, applying principle to multiple switch-board in telephone exchange; Electric Ry. v. Jamaica, etc., R. Co., 61 Fed. 669, arguendo, in considering importance of determining the inventor of an electric railway. Patent will issue for new combination of old elements producing new and beneficial result, p. 283. Approved in Krementz v. S. Cottle Co., 148 U. S. 562, 37 L. 560, 13 S. Ct. 721, rule applied to collar-button which went into general use; Watson v. Stevens, 51 Fed. 760, 5 U. S. App. 101, applying principle to shank-stiffener machine which was first efficient production; Aerated Fuel Co. v. Woodbury Glass Co., 54 Fed. 388. principle applied to apparatus for burning hydrocarbon fuels; American, etc., Ry. v. Mayor, 56 Fed. 151, principle applied to combination for grip to cable cars; Wales v. Waterbury Mfg. Co., 59 Fed. 288, superior article, produced by remedying defects in old devices with new modifications, is not anticipated by latter; S. F. Heath Cycle Co. v. Hay, 67 Fed. 250, applied to device for inflation of bicycle tires; Müller v. Lodge, etc., Tool Co., 77 Fed. 629, 47 U. S. App. 189, invention sustained, though elements are old and no original result accomplished; Knapp v. Morss, 150 U. S. 230, 37 L. 1063, 14 S. Ct. 85, dissenting opinion, majority holding combination did not produce new results. Distinguished in Schreiber v. Grimm, 72 Fed. 675, 43 U. S. App. 10, under facts. ANN Patents.- Burden of proving anticipation by unpatented devices is upon one attacking patent and proof must be clear, p. 284. Reaffirmed in Deering v. Winona Harvester Works, 155 U. S. 300, 39 L. 159, 15 S. Ct. 123, Indurated, etc., Industries Co. v. Grace, 52 Fed. 821, Francis v. Kirkpatrick Co., 52 Fed. 827, Converse v. Matthews, 58 Fed. 248, Oval, etc., Dish Co. v. Sandy Creek, etc., Mfg. Co., 60 Fed. 288, Hanifen v. E. H. Godshalk Co., 78 Fed. 816, Kraatz v. Tieman, 79 Fed. 323, Mast v. Dempster, etc., Mfg. Co., 82 Fed. 332, 49 U. S. App. 516, and M'Ewan v. M'Ewan, 91 Fed. 791. Approved in H. Tibbe, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Lamparter, 51 Fed. 764, where evidence showed cement used in corn-cob pipes had been merely to supply defects, not to fill interstices: Edison, etc., Light Co. v. Electric Mfg. Co., 57 Fed. 618. where patent has been sustained right to injunction can only be defeated by new defense clearly proved (affirmed in 61 Fed. 837, 18 U. S. App. 637); Philadelphia, etc., Ins. Co. v. Edison, etc., Light Co., 65 Fed. 553, 28 U. S. App. 325, Bowers v. Pacific, etc., Reclamation Co., 81 Fed. 571, and Bowers v. San Francisco Bridge Co., 91 Fed. 409, rule especially applies where patent has been unsuccessfully contested; Brooks v. Sacks, 81 Fed. 405, 50 U. S. App. 161; Richardson v. Campbell, 72 Fed. 526, and Dodge v. Post. 76 Fed. 809, rule applies to one setting up priority in subsequent patent; Wilkins, etc., Fastener Co. v. Webb, 89 Fed. 996, patent is prima facie evidence of its validity; Dabby v. Lynes, 64 Fed. 379, arguendo, in discussion of effect of abandoned prior use; Badische, etc., Soda Fabrik v. Kalle, 94 Fed. 166, rule applied to prior publication. Distinguished in American, etc., Paper Co. v. Weston, 59 Fed. 150, 16 U. S. App. 559, where witnesses were numerous, uninterested and unimpeached; Campbell, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Duplex, etc., Press Co., 86 Fed. 328, where creditable witnesses were not opposed. Patents.- Device merely in experimental stage cannot, as anticipation, defeat patent for completed invention, p. 285. Approved in Francis v. Kirkpatrick Co., 52 Fed. 828, where was involved use of cinders to form bottom of furnace; Richardson v. Shepard, 60 Fed. 276, principle applied to spring tongue in hooks and eyes. Distinguished in American, etc., Pulp Co. v. Howland, etc., Pulp Co., 70 Fed. 998, where question was whether alleged inventor had knowledge of foreign patent. Patents.— Doubt concerning actual inventor should be resolved in favor of one first giving complete device to public, p. 292. Approved in Dederick v. Gardner, 50 Fed. 98, where was involved baling-presses; Indurated, etc., Industries Co. v. Grace, 52 Fed. 129, court cannot, on demurrer. take notice of prior art: 143 U. S. 293-301 Notes on U. S. Reports. 124 Francis v. Kirkpatrick Co., 52 Fed. 825, sheet-heating furnace held patentable; Corbin, etc., Lock Co. v. Eagle Lock Co., 52 Fed. 985, Thomson v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 53 Fed. 255, 10 U. S. App. 500, and Carter v. Wollschæger, 53 Fed. 576, utility is evidence of invention in cases of doubt; Converse v. Matthews, 58 Fed. 249, principle applied to stove-knob; Johnson v. Johnston, 60 Fed. 622, complete ness and utility may be evidence of invention; Electric Mfg. Co. v. Edison, etc., Light Co., 61 Fed. 839, 18 U. S. App. 637, ex parte proofs, on motion for injunction, cannot overcome an adjudicated patent; Mast, etc., Co. v. Iowa, etc., Pump Co., 68 Fed. 223, where another had been successful, but had not patented nor manufactured the device, but abandoned it; Consolidated, etc., Shoe Co. 7. Chicago, etc., Ry., 69 Fed. 414, principle applied to shoe for carbrake; Davock v. Chicago, etc., R. R., 69 Fed. 469, long-felt want and utility control in case of doubt; Consolidated Fastener Co. v. Columbian Fastener Co., 79 Fed. 800, simplicity, durability, sales, tribute of public, resolve doubt in favor of invention; Patent-Button Co. v. Consolidated Fastener Co., 84 Fed. 191, arguendo, generally a patent should not be declared void on demurrer; Wilkins, etc., Fastener Co. v. Webb, 89 Fed. 997, principle applied to shoe-button fastener; Bowers v. San Francisco Bridge Co., 91 Fed. 417, principle applied to a hydraulic dredger; Rubber, etc., Wheel Co. v. Columbia, etc., Wheel Co., 91 Fed. 992, commercial success and wide use resolve doubt in favor of invention. Distinguished in Briggs v. Central Ice Co., 54 Fed. 379, where popularity of device was not attributable to combination claimed as new. 143 U. S. 293, 36 L. 161, WASHBURN, ETC., CO. v. NORWOOD, and SAME v. WILER. Adjudged in conformity with barbed-wire patent, q. v., supra. 143 U. S. 293-301, 36 L. 162, MICHIGAN INS. BANK v. ELDRED. Appellate court will not consider exceptions not taken at trial and allowed during term, p. 298. Approved in Thiede v. Utah Ter., 159 U. S. 523, 40 L 244, 16 S. Ct. 67, exceptions tendered twelve days after verdict are too late; New York, etc., R. Co. v. Hyde, 56 Fed. 191, 5 U. S. App. 443, bill may be allowed any time during term; Whiting v. Equitable, etc., Assur. Soc., 60 Fed. 200, 13 U. S. App. 597, trial court may amend record at term and appellate court may amend bill to correspond; Missouri, etc., Ry. v. Russell, 60 Fed. 503, 19 U. S. App. 641, court has no power in vacation to extend time for filing; Southern, etc., Co. v. Johnson, 69 Fed. 562, 44 U. S. App. 1, court may suspend rule requiring exceptions to be settled in prescribed time; Johnson v. Garber, 73 Fed. 526, 43 U. S. App. 107, rule ap plied, though omission to take exceptions was in accordance with practice in the court; Merchants' Exch. Bank v. M'Graw, 76 Fed. ANN |