636 FBBEIUL BBPOIiTBS. �to aVail thernselves of the trick to whick they resorted to obtain a preference over other creditors of the bankrupt. �If I were satisfled that the defendants were unjustly and illegally deprived of any defence they had, I should feel înclined to reverse the judgment of the district court, and allow that defence to prevaih But I am elearly of the opinion that the defendants could not be permitted, with such facts as these before the court, to set up such a defence. So, on the whole, it seems to mej leaving out of view ail other ques- tions in the case, and putting it only on the ground that justice bas been done between these parties, that the judgment of the district court ought to be afBrmed. �And it is, accordingly, affirmed. ���Tyleb V, Wblch. {Oireuii Court, JV. D. New York. Beptember, 1880.) �L Patent — " Improvbment in Oheerb IIoops."— Letters patent granted to William Steinbergh, March 21, 1S71, and re-issued August 5, 1879, for an " improveraent in cheese hoops," suatained. �2. Re-Issub — CoNSTKUCTioir.— The claim of a re- issue will not be enlarged by construction. �Duell, Laas e Hey, for complainant. �Wm. H. Jlubhard, for defendant. �Wallace, D. J. The complainant is the assignee of the letters patent granted to William Sternbergh, March 21, 1871, andre-isBued August 5, 1879, for an "improvement in cheese hoops." The bill is filed to restrain the manufacture and sale by the defendant of cheese hoops known as the "Frazer Hoop," which are manufactured by the defendant under the patent granted to Milton B. Frazer, January 9, 1872. According to the theory of the complainant it had been usual, in the pro- cess of cheese making prier to Sternbergh's invention, to press the curd in a sack or press cloth, and when firm euough to handle the cheese was removed from the hoop, the press cloth ����
