k'nISH V. ETSBSOH. 899 �But it seems very clear to me that the defendant cannot be held to have taken any step to secure his discharge from this liability. He did not include it in his statement of debts, and therefore the resolution of the creditors and action of the court did not prejudice the rights of the creditors of the bank to have this assessment made and coUected. �Issue for plaintiff. ���MoNisH, Administratrix, ». Eversok, Maoetjm & Co. (Oireait Court, W. D. Penneylvania. June b, 1880.) Patent — PmoB Use of Invention. �In Equity. �Wm. A. Stone and D. F. Patterson, for complaînant. �BaàeweU e Kerr, for defendants. �McKennah, C. J. The defendants do not deny înfringe- ment of the patent on which this suit is founded, but they allege prior use by others of the invention claimed, and that, therefore, the plaintiff's intestate is not the first inventor thereof. The invention is a very simple one, and its nature arkl scope are very clearly defined in the claim. It is there stated to be "a bottom for annealing boxes having ribs or bars of wrought iron, or other metal of a similar fibrous elas- tie nature, extending through it, substantially as described." The method of forming these ribs is by placing vyrought-iron rods in the moulds for casting the annealing boxes, and extending throughout their vrhole length, so that the molten metal, when poured into the moulds, v?ill completely surround the rods, and thus they will be incorporated with it. Tha object of the invention is to give these boxes additional strength in the line of the strain upon them, and so prevent their transverse fracture, �The patent is dated April 21, 1874-, upon an application filed March 11, 1874, and the question is, was the invention described and claimed practiced by others than the patentee bef ore the date of the application ? The ans-wer to this ques- ����
