Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/424

 PBOVOST V, PIDGBON. 40i> �to any person purchasing rolls of Allis & Co., and these defendants did purehase rolls of Allis & Co. The controversy, primarily, should be between Allis & Co. and Downton, setting up all these matters, as between them, to take out of them or him any pretended right either may have. �But, 80 far as third persons are concerned, who acted on the faith of Downton's conduct, publications, and the recorded assignment, they cannot be proceeded against for the use of this process. To get rid of any difficulty in this matter, he should proceed directly against Allis & Co. to have the original agreement reformed, so as to correct the mistakes whioh may be, possibly, detected by looking at the co- temporaneous agreements between the parties. In other words, there should have been a suit against Allis & Co. to reform the agreements, as between themselves, and having them reformed, sue any one who thereafter might infringe the process. �On the trial, at the proper time, the merits will be considered to determine as to the validity of the process patent. ���PbOVOST V. PlDGEON. �(District Court, S. D. New York. Beptember 23, 1881.) �1. Attachmbnts— When Set Asidb. �An attachment will be set aside in the absence of any proper endeavor to make Personal service upon the respondent. �2. MARRiEn WoMBN— Process. �When the respondent is a married woman, having no place of business or of customary resort other than her home, which there is no reason to suppose ehe has left, an omission to seek her there, or at her usual or last known place of residence, must be held a failuro of any proper endeavor to make personal service. �3. MisusB OF Process — Practicb. �When it is clear from undisputed facts that through the want of any proper effort to make personal service the process has been used in an unauthorized manner, such misuse will be corrected on motion. �In Admiralty. Motion to set asidfe the service of process of attach- ment. �Samuel B. Ccddwell, for libellant. �P. Cantine, for respondent. �Brown, D. J. a libel in personam was filed in this case on Sep- tember 5, 1881, to recover for supplies furnished the steam-tug Frank Pidgeon, Jr., in her home port, during 1877 and 1878. On the same day process was issued to the marshal, with the usual clause ��� �