PATTEB V. MOLINE PLOW CO. 821 �that the surrender was not good after reeovery. See In re Stein, 16 N. B. E. 569; by Judge Blatchford, in which this proposition of ina- bility to surrender the preference after reeovery is maintained. Other cases might be cited to sustain this view of the case. The only mod- em authorities in confliet with them are In re Black, 17 N. B. H. 399, and Barr v. Hopkins, 12 N. B. E. 211. �From the evidence in this cause it appears that there is a confliet of testimony as to the fact of an offer to surrender the security creat- ing the preference ; but the respondents having retained this seourity, and having sought to establish their right to it by a suit in the cir- cuit court of this district, it is manifest that in point of fact they never made such surrender up to the time of the announcement of the decision by the court; nor does it appear that such a surrender was ever made afterwards. For these reasons we deny the right to the respondents to prove their claim founded on the notes and book account, which was the consideration for the security, and we grant the prayer, etc., of the petitioner that the same shall be stricken off. �Considering that this is a case of constructive fraud only, we think it right that the whole costs 'should be eq[ually divided between the petitioner and the respondent. ���Pattbb and others v. Molinb Plow Go. and others. �{Circuit Court, JV. D. Illinois. June 22, 1881.) �1. Letterb Patent — Cultivators — Infringbmbnt. �The tongueless, straddle-row cultivator, which bas an atched or bent axle, ■with wheels revolving upon the journals at the end of the axle, and plows at- tached to the axle by a joint allowing the plows to swing vertically and lat- terally, the axle being jointed in the middie of the arch by a torsion joint, which is prevented by lugs from turning only a certain distance, does not infringe patents issued, respectively, to Bchroeder, Eichholtz, Norton, Pattee, and Poling. �2, COMEINATIONS OF OlD PaETS. �A pa*ent for the combination of old parts is not infringed by a diflEerent com- bination of the same parts to produce the same resuit. �In Equity. �A. McCallum, for complainants. West a Bond, for defendants. �Blodgbtt, D. J. The bill in this case alleges the issue of the fol- lowing patents by the United States patent-office : ��� �
