The Federal Reporter. Volume 4: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit and District Courts of the United States. October-December, 1880. Page: 411

                                
PUTNAM V. TINKNM.

reduced to 30 per cent. on the balance, which I am by no
means prepared to admit, yet a mistake of this kind would
not enure to the benefit of Burchell's estate; and on that
theory there ceased to be any connection between the obliga-
tion of Burchell and that of Bigler after June 12th. If, how-
ever, Burchell's obligation did not extinguish any part of Big-
ler's original debt, but was collateral thereto, then accepting
a composition from the principal debtor does not discharge
any party collaterally liable for the same debt. The payment
was a settlement of a claim for a composition about which
there was some little question as to the amount that should
be paid, and its legal effect as a payment cannot be held to
be greater than would that of the payment of any composi.
tion.
For these reasons I think the obligation of the bankrupt
has not been discharged, and the claim must be allowed.
PvrUTpM V. Tnznsax.
(Couit Court, D. CoMaeout. October 23, 1880.)
L R.I-esau-IDnTrrr or INvaxTrox.-Re-ssued letters patent for an
improved bottle stopper, granted December 23, 1879, to Henry W.
Putnam, assignee of Joel B. Miller, hded soid, because it appeared on
its face to be for a different invention from that which was embraced
in the original patent.
Arthur v. Briesen, for plaintiff.
E. A. West, for defendant.
BarExAN, D. J. This is a bill in equity, based upon the
alleged infringement of re-issued letters patent for an im-
proved bottle stopper, which were granted on December 23,
1879, to Henry W. Putnam, assignee of Joel B. Miller, de-
ceased. The original patent to Miller was dated October 27,
1874.
The invention described in the re-ssued patent is a both
stopper, which is placed within the bottle to close the mouth
from below. A spring bail and handle are permanently at-