Opinion of the Court.

In Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Waterman, 106 U. S. 265, the purchasers of a railroad subject to the debts of intervening petitioners appealed from a decree ordering them to pay various sums to the petitioners respectively, amounting in all to more than $5000, and the appeal was dismissed as to those petitioners whose debts were severally less than that sum. And in Hassall v. Wilcox, 115 U. S. 598, a similar decision was made upon an appeal by the trustee in a railroad mortgage from a decree in favor of several creditors claiming prior liens.

In Fourth National Bank v. Stout, 113 U. S. 684, the court. dismissed the appeal of a bank from a decree adjudging that it held property of another corporation in trust for the creditors of the latter, (one of whom had filed the bill, and the others had intervened by leave of court pending the suit,) and directing the bank to pay to the creditors severally sums of less than $5000, amounting in all to more than $5000.

In Stewart v. Dunham, 115 U. S. 61, upon a bill in equity in behalf of judgment creditors, (including some who came in pending the suit,) against their debtor and one to whom he had made a conveyance of property alleged to be fraudulent and void as against his creditors, by the decree below the conveyance was adjudged to have been made to hinder, delay and defraud creditors, with the knowledge and connivance of the grantee, and was cancelled, set aside, and declared to be null and void, and the defendants were ordered to pay out of the property to the plaintiffs respectively various sums, one of which was more and the others less than $5000; and the defendants took an appeal, which was dismissed as to all the creditors except the one to whom more than $5000 had been awarded.

Upon the same principle, neither party can appeal from a decree upon a bill by a single plaintiff to enforce separate and distinct liabilities against several defendants, if the sum for which each is alleged or found to be liable is less than the jurisdictional amount. For instance, it was decided in Paving Co. v. Mulford, 100 U. S. 147, that the plaintiff could not appeal from the dismissal of a bill to assert a right against two

Opinion of the Court.

defendants in two distinct certificates of indebtedness, held by them severally, for sums severally less, though together more, than that amount; and in Ec parte Phoenix Ins. Co., 117 U. S. 367, that four insurance companies could not appeal from a decree that each of them should pay $3000 to the plaintiff.

In the less frequent instances in which similar questions have arisen in proceedings at common law, the same distinctions have been maintained.

Where a writ of mandamus was issued to compel a county clerk to extend upon a tax-collector's books a sum sufficient to pay several distinct judgments held by different persons, it was held that the case was like Seaver v. Bigelows and Schwed v. Smith, above cited, and the defendant's right of appeal was determined by the amount of each judgment. Hawley v. Fairbanks, 108 U. S. 543. But where the writ commanded a collector to collect a tax of one per cent upon the property of a county, which had already been levied for the joint. benefit of all the relators, it was held that the case was like Shields v. Thomas and The Connemara, above cited, and that the right of appeal depended upon the whole amount of the tax. Davies v. Corbin, 112 U. S. 36.

In ejectment against two defendants for two parcels of land, if each defendant claims only one parcel, the value of each parcel is the limit of appellate jurisdiction. Tupper v. Wise, 110 U. S. 398; Lynch v. Bailey, 110 U. S. 400. But if both defendants jointly claim both parcels, the value of both is the test. Friend v. Wise, 111 U. S. 797.

In Henderson v. Wadsworth, 115 U. S. 264, 276, where, in an action against heirs upon a debt of their ancestor, separate judgments were rendered against them for their proportionate shares, it was held that no one who had been thus charged with less than $5000 could appeal; and Mr. Justice Woods, in delivering judgment, referred to many of the cases above cited, and declared it to be well settled that "where a judgment or decree against a defendant, who pleads no counterclaim or set-off, and asks no affirmative relief, is brought by him to this court by writ of error or appeal, the amount in

Opinion of the Court.

dispute on which the jurisdiction depends is the amount of the judgment or decree which is sought to be reversed," and that "neither co-defendants nor co-plaintiffs can unite their separate and distinct interests for the purpose of making up the amount necessary to give this court jurisdiction upon writ of error or appeal."

The true line of distinction, as applied to cases like that now before us, is sharply brought out by the recent decisions of Stewart v. Dunham, 115 U. S. 61, and Estes v. Gunter, 121 U. S. 183, in each of which a preferred creditor for more than $5000 was on one side, and general creditors for less than $5000 each were on the other. In Stewart v. Dunham, the suit being brought by the general creditors against the debtor and the preferred creditor to whom the debtor had made the conveyance alleged to be fraudulent, and the latter seeking no affirmative relief, the matter in dispute as between the defendants and each of the plaintiffs was the amount of the claim of that plaintiff; but in Estes v. Gunter, the suit being brought by the preferred creditor against the trustee in the deed of assignment by which he was preferred, and the general creditors being summoned in as defendants, and themselves asking no affirmative relief, the matter in dispute was the value of the debt preferred and of the property assigned to secure the preference.

The case at bar is exactly like Stewart v. Dunham. The suit is by the general creditors, only one of whose debts amounts to $5000; the trustee and the preferred creditor appear as defendants only, file no cross bill, and ask no affirmative relief; and the decree sets aside the fraudulent conveyance so far only as it affects the plaintiffs' rights. The sole matter in dispute, therefore, is between the defendants and each plaintiff as to the amount which the latter shall recover; and the motion to dismiss the appeal of the defendants as to all the plaintiffs except the one whose debt exceeds $5000 must be granted.

This result, as we have seen, is in accordance with a long series of decisions of this court, extending over more than half a century. During that period Congress has often legislated

Statement of the Case.

on the subject of our appellate jurisdiction, without changing the phraseology which had received judicial construction. The court should not now unsettle a rule so long established and recognized.

Motion granted.

EAMES v. ANDREWS.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT.

Argued January 6, 7, 1887.- Decided May 23, 1887.

The reissued letters-patent, No. 4372, issued to Nelson W. Green, May 9, 1871, for an improved method of constructing artesian wells, are for the process of drawing water from the earth by means of a well driven in the manner described in the patent, and are for the same invention described and claimed in the original letters-patent issued to Green, January 14, 1868. It is a reasonable inference from the language employed in the original description that the tube, in the act of being driven into the earth to and into a water-bearing stratum, would form an airtight connection with the surrounding earth, and that the pump should be attached to it by an air-tight connection. The changes made in the amended specification did not enlarge the scope of the patent, or describe a different invention; but only supplied a deficiency in the original description, by describing with more particularity and exactness the means to be employed to produce the desired result. The omission in the second claim of the words, "where no rock is to be penetrated," which are found in the first claim, did not change the obvious meaning of the original claim.

The reissued letters-patent, No. 4372, to Nelson W. Green, were not for the same subject as the letters-patent issued to James Suggett, March 29, 1864; or those issued to John Goode in England in 1823; nor was the invention patented in them anticipated in any publication referred to in the opinion of the court within the rule as to previous publications laid down in Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. 516; Cohn v. United States Corset Co., 93 U. S. 366; and Downton v. Yeagher Milling Co., 108 U. S. 466. The evidence shows a clear case of infringement on the part of the defendant in error.

BILL in equity to restrain an infringement of letters-patent for a driven well. Decree for a perpetual injunction, from which respondent appealed. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

Opinion of the Court.

Mr. C. R. Ingersoll for appellant.

Mr. A. Q. Keasbey for appellees. Mr. J. C. Clayton filed a brief for same.

MR. JUSTICE MATTHEWS delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from the decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Connecticut upon bill in equity filed by the appellees to restrain the alleged infringe- * ment of reissued letters-patent No. 4372, issued to Nelson W. Green, on May 9, 1871, for an improved method of constructing artesian wells. The original letters-patent, No. 73,425, were issued to the patentee January 14, 1868. The defences relied on were that the defendants did not infringe; that the patent was void for want of novelty in the invention; and that the reissued patent was void because it was not for the same invention as that described and claimed in the original patent. The controversy relates to what is commonly known as the "driven well patent."

As one of the defences is, that the reissued patent is void, as covering more than was described and claimed in the original patent, it becomes necessary to compare the two, and for that purpose they are here printed in parallel columns, the drawings being the same in both: