353 ' FEBBBAL EBPOBTER. �in tHat way, because the assignors were -willing to stand by its effect upon their property of various kinds, situated under various circumstances, whatever the effect might turn out to be ; and an assignment of what by law could be taken was ail the creditors had any right to claim. So Caswell is enti- tled to one-ninth of the whole sum reported by the master, $7,000, and Clexton is entitled also to one-ninth, and so much of the profits of one-ninth as accrued before March 31, 1879, in addition; and Eddy is entitled to the profits of the same ninth -which accrued subsequently to that time. �The profits allowed consist in money saved from salaries, at a uniform rate, so that the amount due to the ninth share of Eddy, for the time before March 31, 1879, and for the time subsequent, is readily computed. For the time before it is $6,125, and for the time subsequent $875. Therefore, of the profits reported by the mas- ter, the orator is entitled to - - - $42,000 Samuel E. Clexton to - - - - 13,125 Horace T. Caswell to - ■ - - 7,000 Charles Eddy to .... 875 The defendant James bas moved for a stay of proceedings in this cause, on aecount of a suit brought in this court against him for the same infringement, by the personal rep- resentatives of William W. Secombe, under whom the plain- tiff claims title, in which it is alleged that the title to this patent did not pass from Secombe because the deed from him did not in terms cover it ; and that, if it did, the contraot pursuant to which the deed was made was that this patent should not be conveyed, and that the deed should be reformed to that extent. This motion bas been heard at the same time with the exceptions to the master 's report. As the cases now stand this plaintiff cannot be affected by any paroi contract between the parties to that deed, as to what it should cover. He is a purchaser for valuable consideration, without notice of any such outstanding equitable claim to the patent, if it exists. The laws relating to patents require the title to the patent to be shown by the records of the patent of&ee, and he had a right to rely upon the title there shown. That the ����
