Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/462

 450 FEDERAL REPORTBR. �charge. The court is also of opinion that the crediter bas no standing in court at this time; that the proceeding is prop- erly ex parte, and requires no notice to the creditors. The prayer of the petition is, therefore, granted. ���WiLT V. Geier. {Circuit Court, D. Bdawwre. January 29, 1881.) �1. Mechanical Equivalehts— Samb Results. �Where a peraon procurieffa patent for the building of a machine, ■which produces certain resulta which are novel anduseful, by means of certain mechanical contrivances and appliances, any person who attempts to accomplish the same results by mere substitutions, which are equivalents of the means employed by the flrst patentee, is an infringer. �2. Same— Difference m Fobm. �Any application of known mechanical powers which will produce that resuit, although different in form from the means employed by the original patentee, is a mechanical substituts and equivalent of the same. �In Equity. �Worth Osgood, for complainant. �George P. Fisher, for defendant. �Beadford, D. J. This is a bill in equity, brought by the complainant, Wilt, against the defendant, Grier, for alleged infringement of said Wilt's letters patent No. 190,368, issued May 1, 1877, originally to A. Quincy Eeynolds, of Chicago, 111., and by him transmitted by mesne assignments to the complainant. �This patent is for an improvement in automatic fruit dri- ers, and its peculiarity and novelty consist in mechanical arrangements and deviees by -which a stack of trays, fitting into each other, the outer edges of which constitute the outer side of the stack of trays, or drying-house, are moved up- wards, and suspended by attachments to the lower tray, in order that a fresh tray of fruit can be inserted at the bottom, and the process repeated at pleasure, thus building up the drying-house or stack from the bottom. ����