e8e FBDEBAL BBFOBTEB. �frustrate the polioy of the bankrupt act, without invading tho domain "which belongs exolusively to a higher sovereignty. The state statute does not attempt to do this. It merely sus- pends the operation of its owu statute of limitations. Judgment is ordered for the defendant. ���Beown ». Debbe, Mansub & Co. and others. (Oireuit Oourt, E. D. Missouri. January, 1881.) �1. Ikvention— RoTATOKT Seed-Whbbl. �The substitution of an intermittent rotatory seed-wheel for an oscil- latory seed-wheel, with the addition of the devices necessary to efEect such rotatory motion, constitutes a valid and important improvement. �2. Samb— Division into Distinct Claims. �The supreme court having held divisional patents valid, there can he no legal objection to subdividing au invention into distinct claims. —[Ed. �In Equity. �Teeat, D. J. The only questions cailing for especial attention are — First, was the patent for an improvement isBued in 1865 valid? Of this the court has no doubt; for instead of an oscillatory seed wheel, an intermittent rotatory wheel was suhstituted, — the intermittent rotatory operations, in combination, to be effected by the devices stated, namely, the forks on the transverse bar contrived with checks, so that the wheel could be rotated intermittently, and stopped at each discharge of the seed in the cheek-rows. Second, la the re- isBue No. 6,384 valid? It contains three claims. To under- stand them, it is necessary to consider what was ineluded in the improvement of 1865, and not only what was the state of the art when the patents of 1853 and 1855 were issued, but also of 1865. AU that was ineluded in the patents of 1853 and 1855 are abandoned to the public ; and hence the improve- ment patent of 1865 and its re-issue must rest for present validity, or rather for infringement, upon the violation of the lawfal rights of the plaintif, which were acqoired under said ��� �
