IN BE ELMENDORF.
545
remaining was subordinate to his superior right, it was proper to continue the injunction. But as his rights are now barred by section 5057, no benefit to the estate of the bankrupt can possibly arise from a longer continuance of the injunction, and it would be unjust to deprive the judgment creditors of whatever right may still remain to them to prosecute to judgment the bill for equitable relief which was filed before the proceedings in bankruptcy were begun. To continue the injunction when it can serve no useful purpose to the bankrupt's estate, would be to turn the process of this court into a shield against the investigation of alleged frauds. It is for the court in which that action is brought to determine ultimately what rights still remain to the plaintiffs in the pending suit, and no impediment should be longer interposed by the injunction of this court. An order may be entered dissolving all injunctions and stays upon the prosecution of that suit.
In re 1.
ELMENDORF.
(District Court, 8. D. New York. BANKRUPTC1-DEPOSITS UNDER REV.
December 12,1881.)
ST. § 5124. The bankrupt is entitled to be reimbursed for a deposit made with the clerk under the provisions of section 5124 of the Revised Statutes, provided it did not form a part of his estate.
In Bankruptcy. W. H. Jforrison, for bankrupt. W. H. Gibson, for assignee. BROWN, D. J. This is an application by the bankrupt for an order directing the assignee to repay to him, out of the assigned estate, certain fees and disbursementB necessarily paid by him to the clerk, marshal, etc., in the course of the proceedings in bankruptcy, or for disbursements which those officers would have necessarily incurred. Among the items so asked to be repaid to the bankrupt is the sum of $50, deposited with the clerk, pursuant to section 5124, on April 30, 1878, prior to the issuing of the warrant, to the repayment of which the assignee objects. The bankrupt's voluntary petition was filed April 13, 1878. Rule 29 of the general orders in bankruptcy provides that "the fees of the register, marshal, and clerk shall be paid or secured in all casea v.9,no.9-35
546
FEDERAL BEPORTEB.
before they shall be compelled to perform the duties required of them," and authorizes the court "to order the whole or such portion of the fees and costs in each case to be paid out of the fund in court, in such case, as shall seem just;" and section 5101 provides that the fees and costs of the several proceedings in bankruptcy shall be first paid in full out of the estate. Under those provisions this court has been accustomed to order reimbursement of the legal feos, and disbursementsof the officers necessarily advanced by or on account of the bankrupt for the ordinary proceedings in bankruptcy, including proceedings for a discharge. In re Olds, 4 N. B. R. 146; In re lIeirschberg, 2 Ben. 466; 1 N. B. R. 642. But this has been done upon the petition of some other person than the bankrupt, who has thus advanced the necessary fees; or, if done upon the bankrupt's own haa referred to advances presumably made by the bankrupt, not out of his own estate, which lawfully goes to his assignee, but out of means subsequently acquired or procured from other sources. Rule 29 expressly declares that "funds deposited with the register, marshal, or clerk shall, in all cases where they come out of the bankrupt's estate, be considered as a part of such estate," The item of $50 now asked to be reimbursed to the bankrupt was such a deposit with the clerk; and, if it comes out of the bankrupt's estate, it formed a part of that estate to which the bankrupt cannot have any claim whatever. Anon. 1 N. B. R. 122. The deposit in this case was made very shortly a.ftedhe filing of the voluntary petition. There is nothing in the petition to indicate, nor is there any presumption, that this deposit did not come out of the bankrupt's estate. If, in fact, it was procured from other sources, the bankrupt is entitled to have it restored to him; otherwise, not. If the parties cannot agree upon the facts in reference to that point, a reference to the register in charge may be had to ascertain and report the facts in that regard.
WILSON PACKING CO.
V.
CHICAGO PACKING
&
PROVISION CO.
547
WILSON PACKING CO. and another v; CHICAGO PACKING & PROVISION CO. SAME V.
ST. LOUIS BEEF CANNING (JO.
SAME v. HUNTER and others. (Circuit Court, N. D. Illinois. November 25, L LETTERS PATENT-COOKED MEATS.
J. Wilson, for a new and useful improvement in the process for preserving and packing cooked meats for transportation,-consisting in thoroughly cooking the meat by boiling it in water, removing the bone and gristle, then placing it, while yet warm with cooking, into a box or case and pressing it by some suit· able apparatus with sufficient force to remove the air and all superfluous moisture, and make the meat form a solid cake, and, finally, closing the box or case air-tight upon the meat,-are void for want of novelty. 2. SAME-SAME.
Reissued letters patent No. 6,370, dated April 6, 1875, and issued to William
Claim 1, of reissue No. 7,923, dated October 23,1877, and issued to John A. Wilson, for an improvement in metallic cases for containing cooked meats, which is for a can for packing food hermetically sealed, and constructed of pyramidal form, with rounded corners and offset ends to support the heads; and claim 3, which is a claim as an improved article of manUfacture, of solid meat compressed and secured within a pyramidal case or can so that said can forms a mould for the meat, and permits its discharge as a solid cake,-are also void for want of novelty. 3. SALEs OF PRODUCT OF PATENTED PROCEss-EvIDENCE OF VALIDITY.
In all doubtful cases involving the validity of a patent, the fact that the article made by the use of the process described in the patent has been extensively sold is a consideration of great weight with the court, but it is not enough per 86 to sustain the patent.
West wBond and .lfunday, Evarts wAdcock, for Wilson Packing Company. John N. Jewett and Offield w Towle, for Libby, McNiell & Libby. William H. Clifford and B. F. Thurston, for all complainants. Noble wOrrick, Coburn wThatcher, E. N. Dickinson, and Eldridge It Tourtelotte, for defendants. Before DRUMMOND, C. J., and BLODGETT, D. J. PER CURUM. The cases have all been argued together, and involve the same questions of law and fact, and are founded upon the reissued patent of William J. Wilson, No. 6,370, of April 6, 1875, for a new and useful improvement in the process for preserving and packing cooked meats for transportation, and in the reissued patent of John A. Wilson, No. 7,923, of October 23, 1877, for a new and useful improvement in metallic cans for containing cooked meat. reissued patent of Willia.{l) C. Marshall, No. 6,45], of May· 25,