MATNAnn V. PAWLINQ. 711 �and hîs cîtizensliîp is not stated until Ootober 18, 1879, and the affidavit in -which that statement is madô Was not filed until June 25, 1880. �Under the circumstances thîs can hardly be considered sufficient to deprive the court of jurisdictioû of the case, after the lapse of so much time, and after the court has, for so long a time, taken and exercised eontrol of the case, and after the railroad has been operated under the authority of the court. If Swanson is a creditor of the Mi^and road, or any one of the railroad companies, as a holder of bonds or coupons which are represented by the trustees, respectively, then there is no controversy between Secor and the Union Trust Com- pany and him, and indeed the whole subject connected with his interest in the property is so vague and indefinite in detail, and coming in at so late a day, that any objection founded on his eitizenship cannot be favored by the court. �The objection which is taken, that the application was not made in time, viz., at the first term of the statô court at which the cause might have been tried, can hardly be con- sidered founded on faets which appear in the record. Under the circumstances in this case, it should affirmatively appear that the cause might have been tried at a term before that at which the application was made. �Note. — See Van Allen v. Atchison, Colorado <& Pacific Railroad Oo.,ante, 645. ���ÎIaynap.d V. Pawling and others.* �{Circuit Court, N. B. New Yorlc. July 2, 1880.) �Patent — Oombination of Parts — Oompletion of OoiramATioN bt Rbspondbnt After thb PiLma of the Bili.. — Complainant flJed a bill for infringement of a patent for a combination. Before the flling of the bill, respondents had conlracted to erect, and did erect, a machine containing ail the parts of the combination but one. After the flling of the bill this latter part was added. Eeld, it appearing'that this part was not a necessary incident to the machine, and that its use was not contemplated at the time of the construction of the machine, that the bill must be dism'issed. �tKeported by Frank P. Pritchard,Esq., of the Philadelphia bar. ����
