iff, who became answerable for its value to the execution creditors. Hunt v. Breading, 12 Sergo & R. 41; Hartlieb V. lvIeLane, 44 Pa. St. 510. Indeed, as respects other creditors, the seizure of goods in execution is said to be a satisfaction, pro tanto, of the plaintiff's judgment, unless without fault of his own he is deprived of the fruit of his levy. Duncan v. Harris, 17 Sergo & R. 435; Lyon V. Hampton, 20 Pa. St 46. In every point of view I think the prohibitory clause of section 5075 is inapplicable to this case, and I am constrained to dissent from the conclusion of the register. And now, January 31, 1882, the order of the register in this mat. ter is set aside, and it is ordered that the Eaton, Cole & Burnham Company be admitted to make proof of its claim.
WASHBURN and others.
(Oircuit OQurt, D. Massachusetts, January 28,
LETTERS PATENT-FASTENERS FOR SHUTTERS-VALIDITY.
Letters patent No. 166,819, for an improvement in fasteners for shutters, are not invalid for want of novelty.
Extensive use is, of itself, some evidence of novelty and utility.
In Equity. Tkos. H. Dodge, for complainant. ,fohn L. S. Roberts, for defendants. LOWELL, D. J. The plaintiff describes and claims in his patent, No. 166,819, an improvement in fasteners for shutters, or blinds, made of wire, and fully shown in the drawings, and by a description would hardly be intelligible without the drawings. The defendants make and sell this precise article; and the only question in the case is whether the plaintiff has a valid patent, no matter of how limited a scope. In my opinion, he may hold a narrow claim for the very article which he describes. Other fasteners for shutters and blinds had been made of a single piece of wire, but none which had the several elements of his claim similarly combined. The claim is for "a wire blind fastener, having a horizontal spring arm, A', projecting end, G, inclined or brace arm, E', intermediate coil spring, E, and horizontal eye, F; the same being constructed and adapted to be applied to the blind or shutter, substantially as and for the purposes
COES V. THE COLLINS CO.
set forth." The Haynes fastener, if earlier than the plaintiff's, which is somewhat doubtful, does not have a coil which operates like that shown in the patent; the Waterhouse exhibit does not have the inclined or brace arm, to any useful extent; the Orr fastener has no coil. All these earlier devices appear to have worked well, but the plaintiff's changes were improvements, and brought his fastener into use extensively, which is, of itself, some evidence of novelty and utility. Decree for the complainant.
(Circuit Court, D. Connecticut. January 16. 1882.)
The first claim of reissued letters patent No. 3,483, granted to Loring Coes; June!, 1869, for an "improvement in wrench," which is a claim to an improved Coes wrench, so constructed that the thrust or back strain of the rosette screw, when the wrench is used, shall be borne by the shank instead of the handle of the wrench, substantially as described, is not infringed by 'R wrench made in accordance with the description in letters patent No. 50,364, granted to Jordan & Smith, October 10, 1865, for an" improved wrench." '2. SAllE-SAllE. To remedy the difficulty experienced in the use of the Cocs wrench of 1841, the plate and the ferrule being often broken or bent and pushed out of place, and the wooden handle split or crushed, George C. Taft SUbstituted in place of one rosette three parallel rosettes, with narrower peripheries, revolving at right angles to the line of motion of the adjustable jaw in three parallel grooves in the adjacent face of the main bar. each groove bearing against both faces of its rosette, so as to prevent the rosette and the screw from being carried bodily towards the fixed jaw, and to cause the back-thrust to be received by the side of the groove furthest from the fixed jaw, instead of as. before, by the plate. To effect the same result, the defendant put underneath the plate a screw nut, in the extension of the main bar, a screw thread lJeing cut in the extension, and this screw nut is screwed up tight against the bottom of the screw nut by a Bcrew nut at the extreme end of the extension below the handle. The rosette is the Bame the Coes rosette of 1841, and always maintains the same position relatively to the handle. Held, that the means employed by the defendant are different from those employed by Taft, and are not the mechanical equivalent.
In Equity. George L. Roberts, for plaintiff. WiUia,m E. Simonds, for defendant. BLATCHFORD, C. J. This suit is brought on reissued letters patent No. 3,483, granted to Loring Coes, the plaintiff, June 1; 1869, for an "improvement in wrench," the original patent, No. 40,590, having been granted to Thomas H. Dodge, as assignee of George C.