IBWIN V. METB03E. 533 �There are no averments which make the case one in which the United States are entitled to priority of payment. That depends upon whether the corporation was insolvent when it was being wound up, and the receiver was notified of the debt. �As the bill now stands, the order must be: demurrer eus- tained. ���Ibwin V. Meyrobe. �{Œrcuit Court, B. B. Muascmri. , 1881.) �1. Bill of Rbvibw— Ebbok in Law— New Mattek. �A bill of review can only bc brought for error in law appearing in the body of the deeree or record, without further exainination of matters of fact, or some newmatter of fact discovered, which was not known, and could not possibly have boen used, at the time of the deeree. — [Ed. �In Equity. �Noble e Orrick and Coburn e Thacher, for plaintiffs. �Edward J. O'Brien, ioi defendants. �Tbbat, D. J. In September, 1879, a bill in equity was filed by plaintiffs against the defendants for alleged infringements of patents. An answer, with notice, was filed in due time, as to anticipations, etc., (under Eev. St. § 4920,) look- ing to an impeachment of the validity of said patents, and a general replication was duly entered. A few days before the time limited for taking testimony the defendants' solic- iter moved for the appointment of an examiner to take testimony in their behalf. As the plaintiffs had taken no testimony, or given notice therefor, the court, to prevent unnecessary costs, withheld the order sought by defendants' soliciter, because, so far as disclosed, the plaintiffs had either abandoned their case, or were willing to stand on the plead- ings and exhibits. When the case was subsequently reached in due course, on call of the "equity docket," the defendants answering the call, the court mero motu set the case down for ��� �
