Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/114

 MEIEB V. MAXHEIMEB. 99 �unrecorded deed from her, or equitable owner upon an agreemeiit with his wife for building on the lots for his own benefit, either of ■which would not have been an uncommon cireumstance. �The conveyance to James 0. Meade, in 1875, is alleged to havo been made after all the debts alleged in the complaint were incurred, without consideration, and with intent to complicate and embarrass still further any resort to this propterty by creditors; and it waa received by him, as the bill states, in aid and furtheranee of the fraudulent scheme therein previously set forth. Sueh a grantee man- ifestly acquires no equities and nonew rights against prior creditors; and all these creditors were prior to that conveyance. He is not a hona fide purchaser or encumbrancer; and to such only do the cases oited by the defendant apply. The deed to him, therefore, constitutea no impediment to the plaintiff's recovery. �The demurrer must be overruled, with liberty to the defendants to anawer within 20 days. ���Meveb and another v. Maxheimeb. (Circuit Court, 8. D. Nm Ywh. October 5, 1881.) �1. Lbttbbb Patbnt — Reissues— Invaliditt. �A reissue that covers more than the original, (apparently so as to emliraca intervening inventions of others,) is invalid. �2. Samb— WrBK Cages. �Reissued letters patent No. 8,594, for an improvement in wire cages, consist- ing of an invention of a cage held in stiape by the fltting of crimps in the wires to holes in the cross bands, while that in the original is of a cage held in shape bv the locking of loops on the Wires through riots in the cross bands, are invalid, the inventions being essentially diSerent, �In Equity. �J. Van Santvoord, for complainants. �Arthur v. Briesen, for defendant. �Wheelee, D. J. This suit is brought npon letters patent No. 139,- 784, granted to Michael Grrebner, June 10, 1873, and reissued to the plaintiffs, February 25, 1879, in No. 8,594, for an improvement in wire cages. Among the defences set up is one that the reissue is for a different invention from that in the original patent. The original patent was for a cage having the horizontal bands provided with slots, through which loops formed outwardly on the upright wires were placed and held by a locking bar, extending around the cage out- ��� �