The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1916-02-25
GIVES WIDOW $4,000
FER HAND IN MARRIAGE
United States Circuit Court of Appeals
sustains Ante-Nuptial Contract In
Opinion.
DUPLEX 90. PATENT DECIDED
Richmond Concerns Involved In Ldti-
CATION Over Invention and Its Use.
Lower Court Affirmed---Nfade In
This City.

Two interesting decisions were
handed down yesterday in the United
States Circuit Court of Appeals.
-'he Duplex Envelope Company,
Inc, and the Union Envelope Com
pany, all of Richmond. was not sus-
tanned in its appeal from an adverse
decision by Judge Waddill in the Dis
trict Court. that court holding that
the plaintiff had no cause OF action
against the two defendants In the mat
ter Of infringement OF a patent en-
velope and damages nccruing there
from. The Court of Appeals sustained
the decision of Judge Waddiil
The suit was instituted after tho
Duplex Company had bought certain
patents from Willis =. Stevens, viz
ginia inventor. The patents were said
to have been granted stevens In July
of 1911. and bought by the Duplex
Company.
The defendants claimed that the
features of the patent dated back to
March 1884, in this country, suose-
uuent patents based on the original
patents having been issued for nuiner-
Gus succeeding years and that the
patent had become public property.
They also asserted that features Of the
patent had been patented in England
as far back at 1904 and in Francs As
far back as 1905, and that things"
based on these patents had been man
ufactured for at least two years pre-
vious to stevens patent in Richmond
and Norfolk. In Virginia. and in Mas
sachusetts. Michigan and England
When the suit was brought before
Judge waddill he held that the de-
PENDANTS had established proof or
their claim of previous patents and
dismissed the suit. The court then
allowed the appeal. the decision OF the
lower court being sustained.
Pays $t2, 900 for Love.
An appeal from the District Court OF
Baltimore, for the district of Mary
land at Baltimore. was also passed on
by the Circuit Court OF Appeals.
Judges Knapp and Woods, OF the Cir
cult Court, and Judge ,Waddill, OF the
District Court, hearing the appeal
This appeal which involved a decision
in an ante-nuptial agreement. was de-
cided in favor of the widow OF the
principal party to the transaction. one
John Henry :chnepfe, who signed an
agreement in June 1904. to give Mrs
Caroline Mahle the sum OF $4,000 IN
the event of his death or to her heirs
If he should die after her, on cond,-
ton that she would wed him. Schnepfe
also made 1t part Of the contract
that he would not share In any OF the
property owned by the widow al the
time of her marriage to him
Then came the hand OF death, tax
ing from this earth John Henry
Schnepfe and leaving the widow 10 de-
ynand that the terms OF the contract
he complied with by his executor. III
the state of Alabama Schnepfe had
son John Frederick Schnepfe, who de-
nied that his fathers property should
go 10 the widow. The son claimed
that, iuasmuch as the property LEFT
was real estate, and that the widow o!
his father had left him after the mar
rage. thus constituting just %roun1a
for divorce, that she had no right 10
claim the $4,000 left her in the anre-
nuptial agreement.
Reviewed by the Court
In It's review of the appeal the
court refers to the fact that in June,
ieo4 Caroline Mahle. widow and
John Henry Schnepfe entered INTO an
mite nuptlal contract. Caroline MAMIE
TO possess property she then owned
and in consideration of the marriage
the said John Henry Schnepte doth
-asrYAe ia max in lien of any dover in
ferest which the said Caroline Mamie
would ACQUIRE In his, the said John
Henry Schnepfes estate, the sum OF
-s4a a4A.- the said sl2. 900 to he faald 10
the said Caroline Mahle upon the
death of the said John Henry Schnepie
and out OF whatever estate the SAID
Iobr Henry Schnepfe may die seized
of said payment to be made prior 10
the distribution of said estate
Continuing the review. the court re-
fars to the fact that IL was also agreed
ina, in the event of the death or caro-
line Mahle during Schnepfe's llfetline
he was to pay the $4,000 to her chill
dren bv her former husband: and ne
title and interest which he might ac-
onire nv way OF curtesy in her estate,
The marriage followed says the re-
x,,aw soon afterwards and Schnepfe
died In November. 1914 The sl2,eoe
not having been paid, Mrs, schnepte
brought suit in Circuit Court. NO. -
IF the city Of Baltimore. me tFial re-
suited in a decree requiring the pay
ment of the money TO the widow ana
costs,
e-,urt OF Appeals OF Maryland. and
that court sustained the lower state
court
In April, 1915 this action was then
brought by the appellant. son OF
John Henry Schnepfe, and citizen or
the State of Alabama. against Mrs
Schnepfe TO recover from her his
share and the share OF brother as
signed to him.
When Love Disappeared.
According to the son, Mrs. Schnepfe
left his father. abandoning her hus-
band for such a length of time and
under such circumstances as entitled
him to q divorce, which would have
annulled the ante-nuptial agreement.
But the United States Circuit Court
OF Appeals, after referring to the fact
that 1t appears to be an effort to have
the United States court set aside a de-
cision OF the Maryland Court Of APP
peals. holds that at Is not a merito-
rious defense for the executor to now
set up when the testator can no longer
speak for himself-to seek to avoid
the obligation solemnly made by the
testator, and so far as appears from
the record. intended to be provided
for out of part of his estate set
apart for that purpose. by alleging a
ground. the real facts as to which no
one knew better than the testator him.
self, and yet he did not in his life
time seek to obtain a divorce.
''Inasmuch as the appellee would in
the absence of the agreement have
been entitled TO dover and her share
of the personal estate left by the hus-
ho,a avian ~ N be true that she n ha n