ticulars. Pearl v. Appleton Co., 3 Fed. Rep. 153; s. c., 5 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 533.

Or stating new results. Putnam v. Yerrington, 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 237; s. c., 9 Pat. Off. Gaz. 689.

A new drawing may embrace matter described in the specifications. Union Paper Bag Co. v. Nixon, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 402; Hank's Case, 2 A. L. T. 129. A material change in the drawing not warranted by the specification, must not be made. Flower v. Detroit, 127 U. S. 563.

Adding expositions of the prior state of the art. Kearney v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 320; Adee v. Peck, 42 Fed. Rep. 497; Turner etc. Mfg. Co. v. Dover Stamping Co., 111 U. S. 319; Robertson v. Secombe Mfg. Co., 10 Blatchf. (U. S.) 481; s. c., 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 268; s. c., 3 Pat. Off. Gaz, 412; Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Scoville Mfg. Co., 18 Blatchf. (U. S.) 248; s. c., 3 Fed. Rep. 288.

Introduction of the word "preferably” in describing certain mechanical details. Timken v. Olin, 37 Fed. Rep. 205.

Correcting the spelling of patentee's name. Bignall v. Harvey, 18 Blatchf. (U. S.) 353; s. c., 4 Fed. Rep. 334; s. c., 18 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1275.

But having described certain modifications of a device, and stated that the invention can be modified "in various other equivalent ways, such as would suggest themselves to any intelligent mechanic," other modifications were introduced and called new inventions. Held, that the reissue was void. Philadelphia Novelty Mfg. Co. v. Rouse, 39 Fed. Rep. 273. Compare Broadnax v. Central Stock Yard Co., 4 Fed. Rep. 214; s. c., 5 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 609; Dunbar v. White, 4 Woods (U. S.) 116; s. c., 15 Fed. Rep. 747; s. c., 23 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1446.

Omitting ambiguous or substituting clear words and phrases not forbidden. Atlantic etc. Powder Co. v. Goodyear, 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 161; s. c., 13 Pat. Off. Gaz. 45; Draper v. Potomska Mills, 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 214; S. c., 13 Pat. Off. Gaz. 276.

A change in the wording of a claim

by which an invention originally claimed as a new manufacture, may be claimed in the reissue as a new combination. Middletown Tool Co. v. Judd, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 141.

Latest Rule of Supreme Court Criticising What May be Contained in a Reissued Patent.-Those cases in which this court has held reissues to be invalid, were cases where, by the reissued patent, the scope of the original was so enlarged as to cover and claim as a new invention that which was either not in the original specification as a part of the invention described, or, if described, was, by not being claimed, virtually abandoned and dedicated to public use. Andrews v. Hovey, 123 U. S. 267.

Even where the invention is broader than supposed by the patentee it may be covered by the reissue. Tuttle v. Loomis, 24 Fed. Rep. 789; s. c., 30 Pat. Off. Gaz. 344; Jenkins v. Stetson, 32 Fed. Rep. 398; Odell v. Stout, 22 Fed. Rep. 159; Loring v. Hall, 15 Pat. Off. Gaz. 471.

1. Gill v. Wells, 22 Wall. (U. S.) 1; Washburn etc. Mfg. Co. v. Fuchs, 16 Fed. Rep. 661; Matthews v. Boston Mach. Co., 105 U. S. 54; s. c., 21 Pat. Off. Gaz.. 1349; Johnson v. Flushing etc. R. Co., 22 Pat. Off. Gaz. 329; Turrell v. Bradford, 23 Pat. Off. Ġaz. 1623; Gage v. Herring, 23 Pat. Off. Gaz. 2119; s. c., 107 U. S. 641; Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. James, 125 U. S. 447; Brewster v. Shuler, 37 Fed. Rep. 785; Jenkins v. Stetson, 32 Fed. Rep. 398; Neacy v. Allis, 13 Fed. Rep. 874; s. c., 22 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1621; Cammeyer v. Newton, 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Čas. 159; Redmond v. Parham, 16 Pat. Off. Gaz. 359; Hale v. Stimpson, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 565.

Where the original patent does not suggest that a part is a distinct invention, the patent cannot be reissued to cover that part. Blackman v. Hibbler, 17 Blatchf. (U. S.) 333; s. C., 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 641; s. C., 17 Pat. Off. Gaz. 107.

Combined in a Peculiar Manner.-A claim for a combination of parts combined in a certain way cannot be reissued without restriction. McMurray

Substitution of Element.-A substitution of another element for the one originally contained, and not being an equivalent therefor, is not allowable. Blackman v. Hibler, 17 Blatchf. (U. S.) 333; s. c., 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 641; s. c., 17 Pat. Off. Gaz. 107; National Spring Co. v. Union Car Spring Co., 12 Blatchf. (U. S.) 80; Decker v. Grote, 10 Blatchf. (U. S.) 331; s. c., 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 143; Gallahue v. But terfield, 10 Blatchf. (U. S.) 236; s. c., 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 203; s. c., 2 Pat. Off. Gaz. 648.

Under this doctrine a patent for a combination in which one or more of the elements was described and treated as a separate invention, the reissue may claim the various elements thus described. Wheeler v. Clipper Mower etc. Co., 10 Blatchf. (U. S.) 181; s. c., 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 1; s. c., 2 Pat. Off. Gaz. 442; Battin v. Taggert, 17 How. (U. S.) 74; Wheeler v McCormick, 11 Blatchf. (U. S.) 334; s. c., 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 551; s. c., 4 Pat. Off. Gaz. 692; Bantz v. Frantz, 105 U. S. 160; s. c., 21 Pat. Off. Gaz. 2037; Gallahue v. Butterfield, 10 Blatchf. (U. S.) 232; s. c., 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 203; s. c., 2 Pat. Off. Gaz. 645; Jordon v. Dobson, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 232; Chicago Fruit House v. Busch, 2 Biss. (U. S.) 472; s. c., 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 395; Jenkins v. Stetson, 32 Fed. Rep. 398; Dunbar v. White, 4 Woods (U. S.) 116; s. c., 15 Fed. Rep. 747; s. c., 23 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1446.

And this doctrine permits a subcombination which is shown by the specifications or drawings, to have been part of the original invention, to be claimed in a reissue. Kerosene Lamp Heater Co. v. Littell, 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 312; s. c., 13 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1009; Christman v. Rumsey, 17 Blatchf. (U. S.) 148; s. C., 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 506; s. c., 17 Pat. Off. Gaz. 903; Dederick v. Cassell, 9 Fed. Rep. 306; s. c., 20 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1233; Turrell v. Spaeth, 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 458.

An omission in a combination of a merely incidental feature of the invention, included by accident in the original patent, does not invalidate the reissue. Adee v. Peck, 42 Fed. Rep.

dell, 22 Pat. Off. Gaz. 177; Woodward v. Dinsmore, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 163.

1. Process.-A patent for a process may be reissued for a process and product. Tucker v. Dana, 7 Fed. Rep. 213; Merrill v. Yeomans, I Holmes (U. S.) 331; s. c., 1 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 47; s. c., 5 Pat. Off. Gaz. 267.

Limitation.-But not where the product is not set forth as an invention of the patentee. Atlantic etc. Powder Co. v. California ete. Powder Works, 98 U. S. 126; s. c., 15 Pat. Off. Gaz. 289.

Product.-A patent for an article in a certain form, cannot be reissued to claim the article without limitation of form. Vacuum Oil Co. v. Buffalo etc. Oil Co., 22 Blatchf. (U. S.) 266; s. C., 20 Fed. Rep. 850; s. c., 28 Pat. Off. Gaz. IIOI. Or an article made by a certain process, to the same made by any process. Cochrane V. Badische etc. Fabrik, 111 U. S. 203; s. c., 27 Pat. Off. Gaz. 813. Or for all purposes. Francis v. Mellon, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 153; s. c., 1 Pat. Off. Gaz. 48.

But the product and process may be both claimed if both were described. Badische etc. Fabrik v. Hamilton Mfg. Co., 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 235; S. C., 13 Pat. Off. Gaz. 273; Badische etc. Fabrik v. Higgin, 15 Blatchf. (U. S.) 290; s. c., 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 462; s. c., 14 Pat. Off. Gaz. 414; Holmes v. Dunham etc. Mfg. Co., 20 Blatchf. (U.S.) 123; s. c., 9 Fed. Rep. 757. But not otherwise. Averill etc. Paint Co. v. National etc. Paint Co., 20 Blatchf. (U. S.) 42; s. c., 9 Fed. Rep. 462; s. C., 22 Pat. Off. Gaz. 585.

Machine and Process.-A process and a machine for applying the process are not necessarily one and the same invention. They are generally distinct and different. James v. Čampbell, 104 U. S. 356; s. c., 21 Pat. Off. Gaz. 337; Giant Powder Co. v. California Powder Works, 28 U. S. 136.

And the question whether a patent describing both and claiming one, can be reissued to cover both, depends upon the fact whether the two are one and the same invention. Wing v. Anthony, 106 U. S. 142; Clark v. Kennedy Mfg. Co., 14 Blatchf. (U. S.) 79; s. c., 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 479; s. c., II Pat. Off. Gaz. 68; Campbell v.

James, 104 U. S. 356; s. c., 21 Pat. Off. Gaz. 337; Eachus v. Broomall, 115 U. S. 429; S. C., 33 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1265; Brainard v. Cramme, 20 Blatchf. (U. S.) 530; s. c., 12 Fed. Rep. 621; New v. Warren, 22 Pat. Off. Gaz. 587.

1. Streit v. Lanter, 11 Fed. Rep. 309; Leggett v. Avery, 101 U. S. 256; s. c., 17 Pat. Off. Gaz. 445; Putnam v. Tink ham, 4 Fed. Rep. 411; Putnam v. Hutchinson, 12 Fed.Rep. 127; Edgarton v. Furst etc. Mfg. Co., 10 Biss. (U. S.) 402; s. c., 9 Fed. Rep. 450; s. c., 21 Pat. Off. Gaz. 251; Beecher Mfg. Co. v. Atwater Mfg. Co., 114 U. S. 523; Fink v. Doty, 13 Pat. Off. Gaz. 322; Wicks v. Stevens, 2 Wood (U. S.) 310; 8. C., 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 310.

These cases apparently overruled Kells v. McKenzie, 9 Fed. Rep. 284; s. c., 20 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1663.

Acquiescence in rejection by the Patent Office disclaims the matter rejected, which cannot afterwards be incorporated in a reissue. Boland v. Thompson, 26 Fed. Rep. 633; Arnheim v. Finster, 26 Fed. Rep. 277; Dobson v. Lees, 30 Fed. Rep. 625.

It is sufficient to prevent the incorporation of a matter in a reissue that the original patent in its specification shows that it was not intended to employ it. James v. Campbell, 104 U. S. 356; s. c., 21 Pat. Off. Gaz. 337; Edgarton v. Furst etc. Mfg. Co., 10 Biss. (U. S.) 402; s. C., 9 Fed. Rep. 450; s. C., 21 Pat. Off. Gaz. 261; Doane etc. Mfg. Co. v. Smith, 15 Fed. Rep. 459.

Daniels v. Chesterman, 13 Pat. Off. Gaz. 4; Eames v. Andrews, 122 U. S. 40; Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. James, 22 Blatchf. (U. S.) 294; s. c., 20 Fed. Rep. 903; Sheppard v. Carrigan, 116 U. Ŝ. 593; s. C., 34 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1119; Toepfer v. Goetz, 31 Fed. Rep. 913; 8. C., 41 Pat. Off. Gaz. 933; Lee v. Walsh, 15 Pat. Off. Gaz. 563; Prietz v. Bransford, 31 Fed. Rep. 458; Putnam v. Hutchinson, 11 Biss. (U. S.) 233; s. c., 12 Fed. Rep. 127; Ex parte Hatchman, 3 Mackey (U. S.) 288; s. c., 26 Pat. Off. Gaz. 738; Blades v. Rand, 27 Fed. Rep. 93; Ives v. Sargent, 119 U. S. 652; Harts

horn v. Saginaw Barrel Co., 119 U. S. 664; Dobson v. Lees, 30 Fed. Rep. 633.

This admission cannot be contradicted or withdrawn by the patentee. Moffitt v. Rogers, 18 Fed. Rep. 147; Crawford v. Heysinger, 123 U. S. 589; s. c., 42 Pat. Off. Gaz. 197.

Various Limitations Have Been Made to This Doctrine.-Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Norwich Nat. Bank, 19 Blatchf. (U. S.) 123; s. c., 6 Fed. Rep. 377; Morey v. Lockwood, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 230; Shoe Tip Co. v. Protector Co., 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 561; Lee v. Walsh, 15 Pat. Off. Gaz. 563; Stutz v. Armstrong, 20 Fed. Rep. 843.

Application was made May 9th, 1874, containing a broad claim, the application was rejected and new applications claiming combinations of mechanism were filed; this application pending from March 12th, 1875, to September 25th, 1877, date when original patent was issued; shortly after the applicant reissued with a claim similar to the broad claim in his first application. Reissue held invalid. Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Berkshire Nat. Bank, 135 U. S. 342.

Cancellation of Claim from Misunderstanding Official Action.-Where, however, the action of the Patent Office did not require an abandonment of part of the invention as claimed in the original application, cancellation of the claims for such part on a misapprehension of the action does not estop the patentee from reissuing to cover this part. Hutchinson v. Everett, 33 Fed. Rep. 502; Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. New Haven Sav. Bank, 32 Fed. Rep. 167.

2. Miller v. Bridgeport Brass Co., 104 U. S. 350; s. c., 21 Pat. Off. Gaz. 201; Matthews v. Boston Mach. Co., 105 U. S. 54; Heald v. Rice, 104 U. S. 737; Bantz v. Frantz, 105 U. S. 160; s. c., 21 Pat. Off. Gaz. 2037; Johnson v. Flushing etc. Co., 105 U. S. 539; s. c., 22 Pat. Off. Gaz. 329; Moffit v. Rogers, 106 U. S. 423; S. C., 23 Pat. Off. Gaz. 270; Gage v. Herring, 107 U. S. 640; s. c., 23 Pat. Off. Gaz. 2119; Ives v. Sargent, 17 Fed. Rep. 447; Shirley v. Mayer, 25

Fed. Rep. 38; Worden v. Searls, 121 U. S. 14; Dryfoos v. Wiese, 19 Fed. Rep. 315; Rayer etc. Mach. Co. v. American Printing Co., 19 Fed. Rep. 428; American etc. Boring Co. v. Sheldon, 25 Fed. Rep. 768; Reed v. Chase, 25 Fed. Rep. 94; Asmus v. Alden, 27 Fed. Rep. 684; Schultz v. Ostrander, 27 Fed. Rep. 295; Hoe v. Knap, 27 Fed. Rep. 204; Curran v. St. Louis Refrigerator etc. Co., 29 Fed. Rep. 320; Electric Gas Lighting Co. v. Tillotson, 21 Fed. Rep. 568; Electric etc. Lighting Co. v. Smith etc. Electric Co., 23 Fed. Rep. 195; Electric Gas Lighting Co. v. Boston Electric Co., 29 Fed. Rep. 455; Consolidated Oil Well Packer Co. v. Galey, 38 Fed. Rep. 918; Wollensak v. Reiher, 115 U. S. 96; Mahn v. Harwood, 112 U. S. 354; Ives v. Sargent, 119 Ú. S. 652; Gage v. Kellogg, 23 Fed. Rep. 891; Wooster v. Handy, 21 Fed. Rep. 51; Scrivner v. Oakland Gas Co., 22 Fed. Rep. 98; Holt v. Keeler, 13 Fed. Rep. 464.

There must be "a clear mistake inadvertently committed in the wording of the claims" to authorize a reissue broadening the claims. Haber v. Nelson Mfg. Co., 38 Fed. Rep. 830; Mahn v. Harwood, 112 U. S. 354; Dunham v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 40 Fed. Rep. 667. But where a feature incorporated into the claim is evidently "an incidental and preferable feature of the invention" it is, as such, a mistake, and the specification may be amended to omit it as an element. Adee v. Peck, 42 Fed. Rep. 497.

"The claim of a specific device or combination, and an omission to claim other devices or combinations apparent on the face of the patent, are in law a dedication to the public of that which is not claimed. This legal effect of the patent cannot be revoked unless the patentee surrenders it, and proves that the specification was framed by real accident, inadvertence or mistake, and this should be done with all due diligence and speed. . . Now we do not deny that a claim may be enlarged in a reissued patent; but this may only be done when an actual mis

take has occurred

such as a

court of chancery, in cases within its ordinary jurisdiction would correct." Miller v. Bridgeport Brass Co., 104 U. S. 350; s. c., 21 Pat. Off. Gaz. 201.

Sub-combinations.-This rule applies to claims for sub-combinations which can only be introduced into a reissue when the application claiming them is made within a reasonable time and no intervening rights have accrued. Hubel v. Dick, 28 Fed. Rep. 132; Stiles v. Rice, 29 Fed. Rep. 445.

This rule, of course, does not apply where the reissue merely describes the device more specifically. Hicks v. Otto, 19 Fed. Rep. 749.

The Comparison Is Between the Original and the Last Reissue. In order to take advantage of a prior reissue to show that there had been no delay in applying to broaden the claim, this reissue must be put in evidence; otherwise the comparison will be made with the original patent, and the time between its issue and the application for the reissue considered in determining plaintiff's laches. Hoskin v. Fisher, 125 U. S. 217.

Original Letters Patent When Suit Is on Reissued Letters Patent.-Where the plaintiff fails to introduce into evidence the original letters patent, they may be introduced by the defendant. Parker etc. Co. v. Yale Clock Co., 18 Fed. Rep. 43.

1. Mahn v. Harwood, 112 U. S. 354; Robinson on Patents, vol. 3, P. 405; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Baltimore etc. Co., 25 Fed. Rep. 30; Stutz v. Armstrong, 20 Fed. Rep. 843.

2. The time allowed for public use of an invention before application for a patent. U. S. Rev. Stat., § 4886. Asmus v. Alden, 27 Fed. Rep. 684; Robinson on Patents, vol. 3, p. 406.

An excuse for a delay of over two years must be clearly shown. Ives v. Sargent, 119 U. S. 652; s. c., 38 Pat. Off. Gaz. 181.

3. Robinson on Patents, vel. 3, p. 406. Enlarged Claims Over Two YearsReissue Invalid.-Enlarged claims de

clared invalid when reissue is granted over two years after the date of original. Three and six years. American Co. v. Sheldon, 17 Blatchf. (U. S.) 208; over ten years and intervening rights. Hudnut v. Lafayette Hominy Mills, 26 Fed. Rep. 636; two years and two months reissue invalid. Phillips v. Risser, 26 Fed. Rep. 308. Other spaces of time. Tubular Rivet Co. v. Copeland, 26 Fed. Rep. 706; Gage v. Kellogg, 26 Fed. Rep. 242; Hubel v. Dick, 28 Fed. Rep. 656; Tuttle v. Loomis, 24 Fed. Rep. 789; Curran v. St. Louis Refrigerator etc. Co., 29 Fed. Rep. 320; Schickle etc. Iron Co. v. South St. Louis etc. Co., 29 Fed. Rep. 866; Wollensak v. Sargent, 33 Fed. Rep. 840; Philadelphia Novelty Mfg. Co. v. Rouss, 39 Fed. Rep. 273.

Enlarged Claims Under Two Years Reissue Invalid.-One year, nine months, ten days and intervening rights, and the fact that the inadvertence, accident or mistake was readily discernible. Arnham v. Finster, 24 Fed. Rep. 276; s. c., 26 Fed. Rep. 277.

Enlarged Claims, Reissue Valid.-An application filed within two months was held sufficiently diligent. Russell v. Laughlin, 26 Fed. Rep. 699; McArthur v. Brooklyn etc. Supply Co., 19 Fed. Rep. 263.

An application filed within less than a month of two years after the grant of the original was held valid, there being no intervening rights. Stutz v. Armstrong, 20 Fed. Rep. 843.

Fourteen months and the patent previously sustained. Hammerschlay Mfg. Co. v. Spaulding, 35 Fed. Rep. 67.

Question of Law.-What is a reasonable time is a question of law, and can be determined by the courts by comparing the original and reissued patents and the records of the Patent Office when presented for record. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Baltimore etc. Tel. Co., 25 Fed. Rep. 30.

Good Excuse for Laches.-Sickness of patentee at time of grant of patent, and his closely following death after he had

noticed the defect, and where his administrator had used due diligence. Peoria Target Co. v. Cleveland Target Co., 43 Fed. Rep. 922.

What Are Not Good Excuses for Lack

of Diligence in Applying for Reissue.— Where the patentee was a foreigner not familiar with the English language, and applied immediately_on_becoming cognizant of the defect. Boland v. Thompson, 26 Fed. Rep. 633.

Ignorance of the law on the part of the patentee. Haines v. Peck, 26 Fed. Rep. 625.

1. Gage v. Herring, 107 U. S. 641; s. c., 23 Pat. Off. Gaz. 2119;_ Dunham v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 40 Fed. Rep. 667; Tyler v. Galloway, 12 Fed. Rep. 567; s. c., 22 Pat. Off. Gaz. 2072; Reed v. Chase, 25 Fed. Rep. 94; s. c., 33 Pat. Off. Gaz. 996; American etc. Boring Co. v. Sheldon, 25 Fed. Rep. 768; s.C., 33 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1598; Reay v. Raynor, 22 Blatchf. (U. S.) 13; s. c., 19 Fed. Rep. 308; Dryfoos v. Wise, 22 Blatchf (U. S.) 19; s. c., 19 Fed. Rep. 315; s. C 26 Pat. Off. Gaz. 639; Havemeyer v. Randall, 21 Fed. Rep. 404; Hayes v. Bickelhoupt, 22 Blatchf. (U. S.) 463; 8. c., 21 Fed. Rep. 566; Word v. Packer, 17 Fed. Rep. 650; Cote v. Moffitt, 15 Fed. Rep. 345; Starrett v. Athol Mach. Co., 14 Fed. Rep. 910; s. c., 23 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1729; Schillinger v. Greenway Brewing Co., 17 Fed. Rep. 244; s. c., 24 Pat. Off. Gaz. 495.

2. O'Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. (U. S.) 62; Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Sargent, 117 U. S. 553; Schillinger v. Gunther, 17 Blatchf. (U. S.) 69; Tyler v. Galloway, 12 Fed. Rep. 567.

3. Woodworth v. Stone, 3 Story, (U. S.) 749; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 296; Whitely v. Fisher, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 248; House v. Young, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 335; Stanley v. Whipple, 2 McLean (U. S.) 35; Shaw v. Cooper, 7 Pet. (U. S.) 292; 8. c., 1 Robb Pat. Cas 643; Grant v. Raymond, 6 Pet. (U. S.) 218; s. C., I Robb Pat. Cas. 604; Whitely v. Fisher, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 248. v. Stockwell etc. Gas

4. Selden