In re ALTIMUS. (District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania. March 11, 1926.) No. 12147. Bankruptcy 175-Sale of household goods by bankrupt to his wife in good faith held not invalid, because there was no visible change of possession. Under the law of Pennsylvania, a sale by one subsequently becoming bankrupt to his wife, in good faith, of household goods, is not invalid as to his creditors, because there was no visible change of possession. In Bankruptcy. In the matter of Myles E. Altimus, bankrupt. On review of order of referee. Exception sustained. Jesse C. Long, of Punxsutawney, Pa., for County Nat. Bank. this Circuit (In re Komara, 251 F. 47, 163 C. C. A. 297), where that court held, Judge Buffington delivering the opinion, that under the law of Pennsylvania a sale of a personalty by a bankrupt in good faith to his mother-in-law, with whom he and his wife lived as one family, and for whom he worked, was not invalid as to the creditors because there was no visible change of possession. We think that this case decides the instant case. The exception to the finding of the referee must be sustained. An order may be entered accordingly. HEWES et al. v. DEICHES & CO. W. B. Adams, of Punxsutawney, Pa., (District Court, N. D. Illinois, E. D. August for bankrupt. SCHOONMAKER, District Judge. This case comes to the court on certificate to review the decision of the referee in bankruptcy, adjudging the personal property claimed by Velda M. Altimus to be part of the bankrupt estate. The following facts appear by the referee's opinion: "Myles E. Altimus was adjudged a bankrupt on July 21, 1925. Velda M. Altimus, his wife, on July 18, 1919, acquired title to a certain lot of ground situate in the borough of Nanty Glo, Cambria county, Pa., and on February 4, 1925, made and delivered a mortgage to the Miners' & Merchants' Bank of Nanty Glo on said lot of ground to secure the payment of $2,000. The money so derived was used in the payment of certain wage claims against her husband, the bankrupt. On February 14, 1925, the bankrupt executed and delivered to his wife, Velda M. Altimus, a bill of sale for certain household goods, title to which is the subject of this proceeding. "There is no dispute as to the facts. The bankrupt admits that, at the time he delivered the bill of sale, he was in financial trouble, and the transfer of said goods was made to the claimant, in order to protect her in consideration of her securing the aforesaid amount of $2,000 for him." The referee held this transaction to be a fraud in law against the creditors of Myles E. Altimus, the bankrupt, because it was a sale of personal property without delivery of possession. We think that in arriving at this conclusion he must have overlooked the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals of 31, 1926.) No. 3854. Hewes patents, Nos. 1,419,137 and 1,481,839, for neckties, held invalid for want of invention. 2. Patents 327-In view of more complete evidence of prior art, conclusion of other District Court, in infringement suit against other parties, that patent was valid, will not be followed under rule of comity. District Court in patent infringement case will not, under rule of comity, disregard the record showing lack of invention, because another District Court, in suit against others, on less full and complete evidence as to prior art, held patent to be valid. In Equity. Suit by James A. Hewes and another, partners as Hewes & Potter, against Deiches & Co., for infringement of patents Nos. 1,419,137 and 1,481,837, for neckties, both issued to James A. Hewes, the first June 13, 1922, and the second January 29, 1924, and by him assigned to Hewes & Potter. Bill dismissed. Jones, Addington, Ames & Seibold, of Chicago, Ill., Charles F. Perkins, of Boston, Mass., and A. A. Olson, of Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs. George E. Mueller, of Chicago, Ill., for defendant. LINDLEY, District Judge. [1] After carefully considering the evidence and argument of respective counsel, the court is of the opinion that the patents in suit are invalid for want of invention, and that the product of plaintiff made in pursuance thereof represents merely the ordinary skill of the expe 14 F. (2d) 2 ED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant in rienced worker in the art in making improve- [ no opinion as to whether an amendment purments, within the meaning of those words as suant to the rule of the Kinney Case, 260 U. defined in repeated decisions of the courts. S. 340, 43 S. Ct. 122, 67 L. Ed. 294, can be [2] Judge Thomas reached a different con- allowed in the trial court, if now desired. clusion in Hewes v. Gay et al. (D. C.) 11 F. (2d) 165, but it seems manifest to the court, that, had the evidence as to the prior art there presented been of the full and complete William DE MOSS, Plaintiff in Error, v. UNITcharacter of that in the present record, he would have reached the same conclusion as that here announced. Consequently, following the rules governing comity as announced in Mast, Foos & Co. v. Stover Mfg. Co., 177 U. S. 485, 20 S. Ct. 708, 44 L. Ed. 856, this court should not disregard the record here, in order to reach the result arrived at upon a different state of facts, in a case where the parties were not the same as those now before the court. ed (Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. October 22, 1926.) No. 3688. In Error to the District Court of the Unit States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois. John B. Boddie, of Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff in error. United States. Before ALSCHULER, EVANS, and AN- EVAN A. EVANS, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff in error was convicted and sentenc riidae be4ed upon an indictment charging him, among "41nest. 41 cert. granted other things, with having purchased from CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RAILWAY CO., "persons unknown, in the city of Chicago, a Plaintiff in Error, v. Katherine LINSTEAD, quantity of cocaine hydrochloride," in violaExecutrix, Defendant in Error. tion of the so-called Harrison Anti-Narcotic No- Act. Comp. St. §§ 6287g-6287q. Support (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. vember 9, 1926,) No. 4626./2 for the conviction rests entirely upon the presumption which arose from De Moss' posses412sion of such narcotics. In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Kentucky; Andrew M. J. Cochran, Judge. Frank M. Tracy, of Cincinnati, Ohio (Galvin & Tracy, of Cincinnati, Ohio, on the brief), for plaintiff in error. John W. Cowell, of Cincinnati, Ohio (Ratterman & Cowell, of Cincinnati, Ohio, on the brief), for defendant in error. Before DENISON, DONAHUE, and MOORMAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. We are unable effectively to distinguish the facts of this case from those of Hull v. Philadelphia, etc., Ry., 252 U. S. 475, 40 S. Ct. 358, 64 L. Ed. 670, an opinion which apparently was not brought to the attention of the trial court. It thus becomes necessary to reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings. We express Section 1 of the act reads: "It shall be unlawful for any person to purchase, any of the aforesaid drugs except in the original stamped package or from the original stamped package; and the absence of appropriate tax-paid stamps from any of the aforesaid drugs shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this section by the person in whose possession same may be found." Counsel for plaintiff in error contends that the government failed to prove the venue; that the presumption referred to in the foregoing section does not extend to the place of purchase. The precise question has been considered and very fully treated in Brightman v. United States (C. C. A.) 7 F.(2d) 532, and with the ultimate conclusion there reached we agree. The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial. John D. Hartman, U. S. Atty., of San An- MOORE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Appeltonio, Tex., for respondents. Before WALKER, BRYAN, and FOSTER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. It not appearing that any proposed bill of exceptions was presented to the trial judge during the term of the court at which petitioner was tried, or during the further time allowed by any order made in that regard, the petition for the writ of mandamus is denied. 2 HAZELTINE RESEARCH CORPORATION et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Harold Mertons SCHWAB, Doing Business as Radio Shack, Defendant-Appellant. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. October 20, 1926.) No. 60. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. lant, v. Edward F. PONATH, Appellee. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. October 20, 1926.) No. 3718. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. Joshua R. H. Potts, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant. Arthur C. Eckert, of St. Louis, Mo., for appellee. Before ALSCHULER, EVANS, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Appellant (defendant in District Court) complains of the refusal of the District Court to grant an injunction pendente lite, restraining appellee from notifying the public that he had begun suits against alleged infringers of the patent sued on, and from sending out advertising matter describing the patent as a "pioneer" invention. We find nothing in the record to convince Samuel Rubin, of New York City, for ap- us that in its action in that behalf the District pellant. William H. Davis and R. Morton Adams, both of New York City, for appellees. Before HOUGH, MANTON, and MACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed in open court. 3 Joseph LEITER, Plaintiff In Error, v. Morris In Error to the District Court of the Unit Court transgressed or abused that sound discretion which in such matters it may and should exercise. The order appealed from is affirmed. 5 In the Matter of David H. ORNITZ and Sam. uel B. Ornitz, Individually, etc., Bankrupts, Petitioners-Appellants. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. October 6, 1926.) No. 17. Petition to Revise and Appeal from Order of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Joseph H. Kohan and Petersen, Steiner & ed States for the Southern District of New Kohan, all of New York City, for appellants. York. Graham, McMahon, Buell & Knox, of New York City (Edward Ward McMahon Walter S. Hilborn, C. Edward Benoit, and Gallert, Hilborn & Raphael, all of New York City, for appellees. 14 F. (2d) Before HOUGH, MANTON, and HAND, as the plaintiff contends, and the remaining Circuit Judges. claims in issue, viewed in the light of the prior art, are invalid. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed in open court. RESPRO, Inc., Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Abraham SYDEMAN et al., Defendants, Appellees. * (Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit. October 26, 1926.) No. 2049. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts. Roberts, Cushman & Woodberry, of Boston, Mass. (Odin Roberts and Richard F. Walker, of Boston, Mass., of counsel), for appellant. Nathan Heard, of Boston, Mass. (Frederick A. Tennant, of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for appellees. Before BINGHAM, JOHNSON, and AN- appellee. DERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. This is a suit for infringement of letters patent No. 15,602, dated May 14, 1923, and No. 1,524,573, dated January 27, 1925, applied for by Roland B. Respess and issued to Respro, Inc., assignee. In the District Court there was a decree dismissing the bill of complaint. The present appeal relates only to the second patent. This patent involves the process of making unwoven fabrics and the product thereby produced. The defenses are invalidity and noninfringement. The claims in issue are 1 to 9, inclusive, process claims, and 20, 21, and 22, for the product. In the District Court it was found that claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9 were not infringed, as they embodied a step not used by the defendant, but that, if they were to be construed as the plaintiff contended, they were invalid for want of patentable invention, as were the other claims in issue. Before HOUGH, MANTON, and HAND, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed in open court. 3 cert. denied BUS 754 W1, Ed. 47 Sup. t. 457. UNITED STATES ex rel. Saveria SPREMULLI, Relator-Appellant, v. Henry H. CUR. RAN, as Commissioner, eta, Respondent-Appellee. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Appeal from the District Court of the John M. Lyons, of New York City, for appellant. Emory R. Buckner, U. S. Atty., of New York City (Nathan R. Margold, Asst. U. S. Atty., of New York City, of counsel), for appellee. Before HOUGH, MANTON, and MACK, Circuit Judges. After an examination of the record and giving due consideration to the extended arguments of counsel, oral and written, we are of the opinion that claims 3, 4, 6-9, are not infringed, and that these claims, if construed court. *For opinion below, see 11 F. (2d) 779. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed in open END OF CASES IN VOL. 14 F. (2d) |