TiEMEES' L. & T. CO. ». CENTRAL E. OF lOWA.. 537 �appear. The case having been set down for hearing, the same was heard at the proper time on the issues as made by the pleadings and exhibits. The plaintiffs offered no proofs, and had taken none, tending to show any infringements by the defendants, and hence the court ■was bound to dismiss the bill. It is true, the defendants had raised by their answer the question of the validity of plaintiffs' patents, and had filed the so-called anticipatory patents, of which statutory notice had been given, said patents being swom copies of the orig- inals. The court, on hearing, dismissed the bul. It -was not necessary for it to inquire into the validity of the plain- tiffs' patents, because, if said patents were valid, no evidence that defendants had infringed them was offered. If the court had gone further, and looked into the plaintiffs' patents and the alleged anticipatory patents, the same conclusion must have been reached. There is no error of record, and no new evidence which ean serve as a basis for a bill of review in the light of the authorities, supra, �The demarrer is sustained, and the bill dismissed. ���I'aemees' L. & T. Co. V, Central Eailroad op Iowa. �{Circuit Court, D. Iowa. October 27, 1880.) �1. RbCBIVBR — DiSCHARQB — LiABILITT. �. No action can be maintained against the receiver of a railroad af ter Buch offlcer bas been discharged, and the property trunsferred to a puTChaaer, under an order of the court, in foreclosure proceedings. �2. Samb— ToHTB — Lien on Propbrtt. �Such purchaser, however, takes the property subject to all claims against the receiver, when the court has reserved its jurisdiction, npon final decree, to enforce as liens upon the property all liabilities incurred by such receiver. — [Ed. �In Equity. �T. Brown, for motion. W. H. Gleason, contra. �Love, D. J. This case is now before the court upon a mo- tion by H. L. Morrill, late receiver, and the Central Eailroad ��� �
