The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1842-05-12
u. y. Giro uit Court.
Before Judges Thompson and Belts.


May ll.-DEcsIoNs.-Rumnaisr as. Badger-An action
for infringement of machine for dressing feathers. The
defendant put in plea thral that the had been
tried before in which he averred that the invention did
not belong to plaintiff but that the machine had
vor In nea IN Ia
and the Court must therefore consider them to be correct
Plea allowed.
Cariock TappanT Three pleas were entered in this
averring that plaintiff had assigned and given
the right othe patent for making stock frames &C. which
is the subject of this suit The Court objected TO pleas
being thus multiplied. Pleas overruled.
Bostcick CarfwrightThe plaintiff gave obligation
transfer property which had yet in him.
was in the hands of named Baretta Judgment for
defendant.
freight money in the hands Of Grnne and Minturn
which had been received for the transportation of goods
rshpPsd S the wreck OF vessel on Whom bottom
policy OF insurance that had been given to be transfer
red
action to from tho OF steamboat Charles
ton damages caused by running into the brig Lancet
which, with her cargo was much injured The brig
running the Delaware in the night with the wind free.
The steamboat going down. having the wind ahead. See
cordancc with the rule OF navigation that the vessel hav
ing the wind must make for the other she altered her
into her. The Court held that the old custom rea.
tive to sail vessels did not apply to steamboats, which
enabled to steer in any direction and them
rest the responsibility when vessel is run foul oby them
how may be the wind. The Lancet was bound
to keep her place without reference the steamboat and
her leaving the channel the sole the accident.
The District Court had also entertained these views
found for the defendant Decree affirmed
limo Delight and Ohersrs. Daniel .appleton-This
an action for inv aiding the copy right Of Dwght work
Theology Explained and Defended" Sc, volumes.
The Court held that where the title Of work placed in
the Secreary Office and the various volumes deposited
as they published, it is sufficient SECURE the copy
right. Judgment for plaintiff
Motion for trial denied.
DEGREES IN BASKRuPTcY.
Robert Chapman--Beiore deciding in this case, Judge
Thompson remarked that cases do before the
Circuit Court on Appeal the law does not provide for
such but that the District Judge has to submit
particular points for its decision Chapman plac among
the items in his schedule the of $50 in money but lie
comes in and states that he has expended in counsel
fees and the Of his family and consequently
cannot make it over, The Court held that the assignee
was entitledo thing in the schedule and that he
must !pay over the money The creditors not be
made to pay counsel fees and expenses in bankruptcy
The assignee had his power set off the $50 for the
use ofpeoners family under the act included in the
$500.
George Brown--Ths was case in which objcc ton was
urged to his having decree in bankruptcy
his owing fduciary trust debt The Court held that
person owing trust debts only excluded him from the
fit of the act SO far related those debts and that he
could receive discharge all others The
ditor could make his choice to in with the others
to retain his claim against the debtor holding him still
responsible for the amount The decree Of bankruptcy
must be allowed.
Messrs. BrooksObecton made in this case on the
ground Of factor being agent Without deciding
this point the Court considered the parties entitled to
decree.
Henry Knoelnnd-O Injection had been made on the
ground that the petitioner had set forth trusts held
from the wills Of his father and his brother also pro
perty belonging his WIFE The Court held that the lat
ter had been assigned and the petitioner had claim 10
it. AS TO the trusts all the right Of the petitioner vested
in the assignee whether in the schedule not and the
questions could be presented hereafter regular form
law. Decree allowed.
Leonard Paulson-This was an application of the gene.
raj assignee as to his partnership property
where only one OF the parties petitioner in bank
uptcy The Court held that the interest only OF the
tioner in the partnership property could be claimed BY
the assignee.