The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-11-13
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
The Fowler Hay Elevator Patent Case-
Powers Of Receivers and Personal Liability
Of National Bank Stockholders.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 10, 1869.
No. 2o9.--Jrnles D. Bennett ana Seth Turner ne.
Finley n F0tcte1.-Appe0s rom me circuit Court
Jor me Northern District or Wfnois.-Ihe bin In
this cause was filed by Fowler 10 obtain account
ing and Injunction against Bennett and Turner for
an alleged infringement oil two ressued letters
patent. obtained by him Tor improvements for eie
waiting hay ana other hGe purposes" Tae defendants
appeared aud answered, but oTsred proof to sas-
tain their allegations. subsequently an iaterio-
cutory decree was entered adjudgIng al Infringe
ment and ordering reference and perpetual
injunction. Tho defendants appeared on the refer
ence which resulted III a report TOR tho COMPLAIN
ant for 81, $50. On entering tao decree the amount
was reduced 10 $500, fiom which the oetendants
appealed, and they now claim that their letters
patent Were granted TO them before the claimant
obtained the reissued patents alleged TO have been
niringea, ana that his reissued paten are vague.
indefinite and consequently void They contain de-
scriptlons CT dtnegently constructed machines ana
different results irOai any described in the original
letters, and clearly relssued for the purpose or
inserting therein expanded and equivocal Claims.
Although tue patenee calls has inveistton an IN
provement In elevatng hay aud other like pro-
ducts he does not particularly specify anu point
out the parts, improvements or combinations which
ne cl!lis are MS own SO as ~ enaoie ,he papc 10
know definitely wDat his ciaisn ~ t. asserted
tfiht iHp pdtehteS CtdltsS VIII
dace CERTAIN results, wch At VIA not produce Inc
clements or Observation-Disclosures In The machine OF the
claimant and appellee are, hfst, u seiisupportins
base, OK frame, called Ptralldal III lori, as dis
unguished ana distinct lroin standard OF
centre post; second, q cenIre piece, or post,
supported In or by the base frame; tara, an
upper revo wing Frame called pyrimlda
In form; Ioutln, O rope aad sAeAvea SO arranged
described; uith IN the nnal combination Oh the
foregoing clements a uevice 1or ;sraiping may or
other like products, IN tai5 case FORK; sixth In
operation, the power applied outside the maehine.
Inc appellee claims tnAt ha patents Establish That
he The first invent a machine Combining these
clements Tor tue ooJects and purposes staGsa IN the
specifications as an independent a2fieul era nipple
ment. IL is maintained mat the appellants
machine Is Clear bri1yeDeat 0. The complain
ants patents III every Particular beng SUBSTANTIALLY
the same ofgahiIatioas III lorna ana eaect. l.. l..
Cohurn Tor appellant, l.. A. Goodw.h Tor appellee.
No. 2l0.-jpneS {. heD'ieuY, IsscStrei' ~ Tue SeI.
ctal.ts' National Bnnh ~ NGsAta7t0,a, u.s. Put3acac
Gibson et oI-AQpeot from Tie Cstc0t Couyg .ior the
District or 3diglano.-ln June, l'6i hennedy, u
citizen OF New York, as receiver OF the Washington
Bank finding thai the ass-ts credits Of tic bana
Were insaficent to pay us Inliit ties, brought tlis
acton TO enforce the personal ably vi the ueiend
ants, as stocHhoders, unuer tue acs OF February y
lsGl and July s. lSo4 Yne BIZ set forth 2.Jg0
shares OF stock were issued Oy tue bunk, ana
that 1t would be necessary, Tor the payment
OF Its entne llabiliLies, TO oD!aln from Inc
stockholders I'M amount Of mones equal to the
flli amount or The STOCK at par talGe S20j,o3u;
ana 1t was insisted that Inc receiver was entitled
tn have account taken, as against tte stock
holders Of The naeuiues anu asatabe assets
OF the bank, and to recover ro each OF taen pro-
poruonata conulbuton Tor tne purpose or making
good any deficiency wncn might renia II after Apply
ing all assets ana credits ne bnI cnlr-cl taat
al tue lailurc OF tAe pahk most ol the oeitIuaht5
were shareholders and those remaining mad been
up to the tune they id reason TO ue-
Heye il was IN Inso .veuJ clrcuIS alccs when they
ass gucd tncr shares. with intent u eyadc tue iia
bIity sought 10 be enforced to persons not pecuni-
ariy responsible The Dali further stated taat other
oil the bans were clizens some OF new
orS ana some OF the DjtIlcG OF Columbia, and
could not be made parties because tnelr joinder
Nynnii }ur.slIrlOl Qi court. and Dr.lVpi
tuat the case might proceed WitJou6 making
them parties. ihe oeieudanis demnTeI 10
the BIN, submitting that tie case siateJ
did not entite the receiver 10 the feef sought ana
that the and residences TIE creditors Of the
bank for whose beleiiI the suit was brought not
being stated, the court had no Jurisdiction Of the
case. lhe stockholders named IN tae biz As non-
residents or the state OF MaryaId were necessary
parties to any SUIT brought against the defendants
touching any Of the matters OF equity claimed add
tue alleged creditors OF the bank should a so be
joined as parties plaintiff. The demurrer was sus-
tanned by the court below and the biz dismissed.
Inc recaiver prngs the case here Insisting mat IA he
Is statutory officer, nominated oy the Comptroller,
he Is clothed with al the necessary powels to ma
tain TINS sui' By the statue nc - required under
The direction OF the Compt Oder 70 ase possession
OF the books, records, assets &c., and 10
pay all claims; ana he Is also required by the
statute II necessary 70 pay the debts OF tae assoca-
stockholders provided by the twe.iih section OF
the act OF 1854; and 1t IS submitted taat there Is no
way TO enforce thls liability unless he Is competent
to bring suit IN his own name FOR that purpose,
in whoa he may show the condition of the paak
ana the necessity aud extent OF tae laolity. Inls
was national bank. ana Its direct us could no
longer bring SUIT, after Ill tao pooks. assets and
aals were taken from them. 1t results then, 1t Is
CLAIMED, that the receiver may sue whenever IL may
he necessary, tnat many receivers snOuld ne
appointed as theirs are Stitss N winch quits may he
Brought II the court had the Appointment OF tho
receiver lie could not sue extra terrltorly; aud 10
10 meet this difficulty thar 1t was provided tDa
receiver or the nailoaa banks should be appointed
by the Comptroller and not by the local courts. And
II follows tnat tic national cceyer may sue to
ealorce the express power colerred hin,
there no person competent 10 IT Is also MAN.
tanned thst contribution pro rata among the stock
holders, for the paipose OF making the deficiency OF
assets 10 pay the deDs, - a matter peculiarly OF
equitable jullsdlcon nor Is IL any objection TO the
Contribution that some of the stockholders are non
residents. If stockholders scattered diferea6
jurisdictions the court may IN each case make the
assessment as best be done AGAINST those found
Within the jurisdiction, otherwise ali VIII escape
liability by their separate residences. Then, after
the receiver has enforced the personal liability o. the
stockholders ana paid over al noaay 80 tAo ttea-
surer and reported his proceedings 10 the Comp
troller, the latter Officer viii distribution or
the assets, irsl taking care Of ma United states as
creditor. After the CDited states are patti tue
Comptroller - TO pay, pro rata, al CLAIMS proved 10
his sails,actl0n or aaIlicaied IN ccart VI com
pctent jurisdiction, anh tnen the surplus f any, Is
80 go 10 the shareholders ilis provision, 10 Is
belieYei, misea the ludgc EeioW VINO construed
II as requiring that the c4uns Of ere itofs
Hh0ud be Ast ascertaIncd by tie Comptroner before
tue stockholders could ne held abe, pro rata, 10
pay The deficiency OF the assess. The receiver rep
resents in such proceeding an The rights o. the
iutlea states and creditors uone OF Is HON need 30
parties as this court y only TO adjulicate the
question of The deficiency OF the assets ana the
amount payable to the receiver by each stocGnoldor
X Il shalt be said thlt the suit should have bee
brought by thc District Attorney Tor the untoI
states under The fitleth section 81 the Currency actI
" is suDEiuej that fhe secretary OF tle treasury
approved the elnploymeut ~ tne attorneys VINO
brought the SUIT IS special counsel. Tac stockholm
era maintain the contrary OF TIC foregoing proposi-
tions aad ~ respect 10 tho jurisdiction urge that
there ia no power IN the Circuit court TO nave All
account stated under this aW; nor can such u spt
IN equity "a tho present be brought entosce tha
Individual liability OF the stockholders. IL IL Insisted
thar the - put bey ond equity Juriaicton by an
sYermeut ~ the nil "tnat tue balance u indehte.
ness OF tDe bank. ter applying its assets exceeds
tie whoe amount Of the capital stocS.u Robert u.
Brent AMI u. T. herrlck for tie appellant, ]. n.
Steele ana 1nDs. Donaldson for appelees
Thc Tennessee Railroad Case.
WAsHNGTDS, soy. II, isb9.
Tho Tennessee railroad case was concluded to day
before Associate Jnst!cc sWayae. sitting IN cham
nara Ita Tnnn.asna r,iitnat = ware r.p-aacntel ~