■WILLIAMS V. OANDBB. ���683 ���tion. To that amount complainants yrere entitled at that time, and interest, therefore, ia only compensation for the delay of payment of a liquidated sum. Besides, no exception bas been specifically filed to the allowance of interest by the master. �This is ail I need Bay of the case. AU the exceptions filed to the master's report are overruled, and his report is con- firmed. Let a final decree, accordingly, be prepared. ���Williams and anotber v. L. Candee & Co^ �(Oireuit Court, D. Connecticut. May 8, 18800 �Patent — Impeotbmbnt m Overshoes — Watek-Proof Flaps — Ih- �Benjamin F. Thurston, for plaintiffs. �Charles F. Blake, for defendants. �Shipman, C. J. This is a bill in equity based npon the alleged infringement of letters patent No. 131,201, dated September 10, 1872, for an improvement in overshoes, and, also, of letters patent No. 166,669, dated August 10, 1875, for an improvement in rubber boots. Eaeb patent was granted to Isaac P. Williams, one of the plaintiffs. The other plaintiff is the exclusive licensee under each patent. �Number 131,201 was designed to be an improvement npon the well-known rubber and cloth gaiter overshoe, called the "Arctic," and which was fastened by a buckle over the instep. The shape of the shoe was that of the brogan. The Arctio was not peffectiy water-tight, for, when Tom in deep snow, water would find its way between the vamp and the quarter. The improvement upon the Arctic shoe consisted in overlap- ping the vamp and the quarter beneath the fdbber foxing, and extending the vamp and quarter bo as to form bellows- like, water- excluding flaps, folded on each side of the instep, and buckled together over the instep. I do not consider the place of overlapping to be a part of the invention. The ����
