[89]

[90]

[91]

[92]

[23]

"My object is to construct a lifter which will | finger, so that the rod may i will conventies always be ready for use and answer equally turned and lifted or lowered a wil

well for all kinds of transoms, no matter how

the same may be hinged, without exchanging or
altering any of the parts, in a simple and
durable manner.

In the drawings forming part of this specifi-
cation, Figures I and 2 show a front view and
side elevation of my lifter attached to a transom
hinged below. Figs. 3 and 4 show the lifter
for transoms hinged above. Fig. 5 shows a
front view of the lifter attached to a ventilating
opening hanging obliquely. Fig. 6 shows the
lifter attached to a transom hingel sidewise.
Fig. 7 shows the lifter attached to a skylight.
Fig. 8 shows a front view, Fig. 9 a vertical
longitudinal section, and Fig. 10 an inverted
plan, of the casing. Figs. 11 and 12 show the
top of lifting rod with adjusting block. Fig.
13 shows the lower part of the lifting rod with
handle attachment.

Like letters of reference indicate like parts. The casing A, which is screwed to the door frame, is provided on the front plate with a long slot, a. Sliding loosely up and down in this casing, A, is the adjusting block B, which protrudes by the ear 5, forming part of this block, through slot a. Affixed to block B is the lifting rod C, in such a manner as to allow the rod to turn in said block. For this purpose the block is provided with a wide slot, as shown in Figs. 9 and 12, into which fits loosely the pin d, which penetrates the rod C

Attached to the transom in. a position which is regulated by and depends upon the manner of hinging the same, at about midway between the outer swinging point and the center of hinge, is the bracket or loop D. Attached to this loop is the connecting link or arm E, which connects at its other end to the ear b of the adjusting block.

A look at the drawings will show that the upward or downward movement of the adjusting block, caused by the respective movement of the lifting rod, will be followed by a swinging movement of the transom on its hinges, drough the agency of the universal link or arm E.

The inner face of the casing A (shown in Fig. 9) is provided with a series of notches, e. The upper end of the rod C is provided with a spiral spring, F, which, resting at one end in the hole of the adjusting block B, is affixed at its other end in a groove, f, at the top of rod C. This spring F has the tendency to hold the rod C, which turns loosely in the block B, in such a position as to cause the pin d, which projects on both sides of the block B, to fall into one of the notches e provided in the casing. Thus the rod, with block B and universal link E, is held in place by the action of spring Fand pin d, and can be moved only by turning the rod C slightly on its axes, so as to disengage the pin d from the notch e.

It will be seen that, whenever the hand of the operator should happen to loose its hold upon the rod, the spring F will cause the pin d to fall into the next notch and arrest the further movement of the block B, and thereby the movement of the transom. The transom may thus be locked at any desired position.

The rod C is provided at its lower end with handle H, arranged with an opening for the

1

#

For transoms hinged at the lower edge of th frame (shown in Figs. 1 and 2) the transom wit loop D hangs in the universal link E. T casing A with adjusting block is fixed abov When operating the same, the block bears wi its shoulders / upon the inner face of casing

For transoms hinged at the upper frame, shown in Figs. 3 and 4, the casing is fasten below, so that the adjusting block may be ho by the lowest notch e. While the transom closed, the universal link hangs downward fro the loop D. In this case, when operated, t bearing between block and casing is reverse and is taken up by a pin g, penetrating throu the ear of the block and resting upon the ou face of the casing A.

For oblique transoms the lifter is affixed as in Fig. 5. Fig. 6 shows a transom at the side. The casing or lifter is affed vertically at the hinged side, the adjustmock being in the highest notch when the them is closed.

For transoms hinged in the middle, the lifter mr be affixed either above or below the hinged For skylights, the lifter is affixed as Fiz. 7

i will be seen that the universal link E, with t swiveling loop ends, will always be Pay form a connection between the transom At D and the carb of the adjusting block, no which way the transom may be hinged. I claim as my invention, and desire to by letters patent, is:

The adjusting block B, ro C, pin d, and Fin combination with casing A, prowith slot a and notches e, e, for the purpose set forth,”

pecification of the complainant's patent
broadly to describe the invention,
embrace in it, as "any construction,
or arrangement of parts which shall
the long or operating rod and prevent
bent or displaced by the weight
m." But, having reference to the
heart at the date of the alleged inven-
e claims of the patent, the patentee
leted to the combination, with a
Lifting arm and operating rod, of a
the upper end of the operating rod,
beyond the junction with the lifting
to prevent the operating rod from
or displaced by the weight of the

end of the lifting rod. To be accurate, I also
state that it serves, additionally, to operate a
novel locking device with which said foot piece
of the lifting arm is provided.

So far, then, as the function of the guide G'
in the Wollensak patent, or the upper guide in
the numbers 1 and 3 of the Wollensak transom
model, is concerned, I find that the Reiher tran-
som presents a totally different structure, ope-
rating on a totally different principle, from that
exhibited in the Wollensak transom model.

In my judgment the improvements of Mr. Reiher, as exemplified in the Reiher transom exhibit, are based upon and proceed from a totally different point in the state of the art of transom lifters, from that admitted to be old in the passage quoted from Wollensak's patent The casing A, with slot a, containing the specifications, and upon which Wollensak's imblock B, with upright rod C, in com-provements are based. It is a matter of comwith chain link E and loop D, all ar- mon knowledge, I believe, and it is certainly and constructed in the manner as shown, within my personal knowledge, that transoms the purpose specified. or flap windows were, long prior to the date of Wollensak's original patent, provided with a pivoted brace, the foot of which was movable against the frame of such window or door. This is precisely the point in the art to which Mr. Reiher in his transom lifter has applied his improvements. His improvements do not involve the removal of the weight of the transom from a direct bearing against the frame at the foot of the lifting arm, and have not that object. Mr. Reiher sought, evidently, only to provide a ready locking device by which the foot of the lifting arm may be secured at any point quickly, and by which he may at once reach the locking device and lift the transoms through the medium of the long upright rod. Said long upright rod in his case is not, therefore, made stronger or weaker with a view to prevent its bending, and is only strong enough in any case to enable him to push up the foot of the lifting arm, and, by rotating the rod, to by the question whether this is a pa- unlock his novel fastening device. There was tention, in view of the existing state no fault' in the old structure upon which Mr. the claim must be regarded as a nar-Reiher has made his improvements like that asand limited to the particular combina- signed to the old device upon which Wollensak In that view, the defendant's has improved, namely: the bending of the veris no infringement. The differ- tical rod having a lifting rod connected therethe two devices is pointed out, and, with, because said lifting arm did not, in the wisfactorily, by Mr. Dayton, an old device attacked by Reiher, have any verti on behalf of the defendant. He cal rod at all, and because the lifting arm disthe sash is opened in the Reiher tinctly bore against the frame instead of against 1 ounce of its weight falls upon, the rod." y or obliquely, the upright rod. atom is provided at its lower end which runs in a guide, and which ed, with inner flanges and an exared to bear respectively upon and outer faces of the slotted guide | ae, and which is fixed on the

receive all the pressure resulting |

It follows that the decree of the Circuit Court, dismissing the bill for want of equity, was correct. It is accordingly affirmed.

True copy. Test:

James H. McKenney, Clerk, Sup. Court, U. 8,

t of the transom. The handle BEN. H. SMITH AND L. H. SPRINGER, as

right rod in the said Reiher tran

*xed and serves wholly as a means foot of the lifting arm and pushdrawing it downward. As I a particle of inward or lateral pon the end of this rod by rea

Admr. of WILLIAM H. TODD, Deceased,

of the transom. In my judg-Practice-final decree-subsequent proceedings

rod may, for this purpose,

at as present. I stated that the
f the long upright rod was to
the foot of the block with the to

service of process-Statute of Limitations.

1. After a final decree the parties are not bound
take notice of subsequent proceedings, unless

[95]

[96]

[143]

[143]

they are served with process or enter their volun-
tary appearance.

2. Where a petition, filed subsequent to a decree,
instituted a new litigation on new and distinct is
sues not raised by the original pleadings, and which
could not have been properly raised by amendment,
and between parties who were complainants in the
original cause, service of process on the parties
against whom relief is sought is necessary.

party.

3. The statutes of Arkansas do not authorize ser-
vice of process by letter or on the attorney of a
4. A complainant can have a decree against an-
other complainant upon a supplemental or amended
bill only upon notice to the latter, if at all.
5. A decree against a party who has not been
heard, and has had no chance to be heard, is not a
Judicial determination of his rights, and is not en-
titled to respect in any other court.
6. Under the decisions of the Supreme Court of
Arkansas, to bar a suit for the foreclosure of a
mortgage there must not only be an adverse pos-
session for such a length of time as would bar an
action of ejectment, but there must be an open and
notorious denial of the mortgagee's title.
[No. 241.]

Argued and submitted Apr. 9, 1885.
May 4, 1885.

Decided

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the Unit

ed States for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

The history and facts of the case appear in the

Statement by Mr. Justice Woods:
The bill in this case was filed by Joseph S.
Woolfolk to foreclose a mortgage executed to
him by William H. Todd, the intestate of L.
H. Springer, one of the appellants, upon the
Belleview plantation, situate in Chit County,

Arkansas.

tate of Craig in Kentucky. The supplemental bill prayed the same relief as the original bill. The lands of the estate were brought to sale in accordance with the prayer of the bill, and most of them, including the Belleview plantation, were purchased by Todd. Upon a report of the sale, the share of Mrs. Woolfolk in the proceeds was found by the court to be $9.831, and Todd, having paid a small part of this sum, Woolfolk, for the residue, took the two notes of Todd, payable to himself, for $4,243.20 each, to secure which Todd executed to him a mort gage on the Belleview plantation. The court having distributed the proceeds of the sales of the lands, directed the receiver to collect the available assets of the estate and report to the next term of the court. By his reports subsequently made it appeared that the receiver had been able to collect only the sum of $157, which the court allowed him to retain as his compensation, so that nothing remained of the original cause in which Woolfolk and his wife were in any way concerned.

satisfaction of the claim of A. D. Kelly & Co., which had been classed as a preferred debt by the Probate Court in Arkansas, and prayed that Woolfolk and wife might be required to ac count for any proceeds of the Louisville real es tate received by them, according to the rights of creditors as declared by the Arkansas Pro bate Court; the purpose of the petition being to subject the money arising from the sale of the Louisville property to the payment first of the claim of A. D. Kelley & Co., owned by Todd

Afterwards, on April 12, 1869, during a va cation of the court, Todd, who had become by assignment the owner of the claim of A. D Kelly & Co., filed a petition in the case of The Creditors of Craig v. Emma J. Wright, Executrix, and others, in which he alleged, among other things, that Woolfolk and wife had brought suit in the Chancery Court of Louisville, Kentucky, against Todd and the heirs of Craig, to subject to the payment of the balance due Mr. Woolfolk from the estate of Craig, certain real estate in the City of Louisville. The The record discloses the following facts. Jun- petition averred that the proceeds of the Louisius W. Craig, a citizen of Arkansas, and the own-ville real estate should be first applied to the er of the Belleview plantation, had, on December 5, 1856, mortgaged it to Mrs. Lucy D. Craig, the widow of his brother, to secure $41,666 owing by bim to her. Some time after the date of the mortgage, Mrs. Craig intermarried with Joseph H. Woolfolk, the appellee. Junius W. Craig died on September 17, 1858. On March 16, 1866, Joseph H. Woolfolk and Lucy D., his wife, William H. Frazier, assignee of A. D. Kelly & Co., William H. Todd and others, in [144] behalf of themselves and all other creditors of the estate of Junius W. Craig, filed their bill in equity in the Circuit Court of Chicot County, Arkansas, against Emma J. Wright, executrix of the last will of Junius W. Craig, and others. for the settlement of his estate. The case is styled in the record, "The Creditors of Junius W. Craig v. Emma J. Wright, Executrix, and others." The bill alleged that many debts had The statutes of Arkansas do not authorize been proven against the estate, amounting in all service of process in either of the methods di to the sum of $236,289.34, among which was rected by the order. Nevertheless, the sherif the debt above mentioned due to Mrs. Lucy D. returned that he had served the order by mail Woolfolk, a debt due to Frazier, assignee of A. ing a copy thereof to Woolfolk and wife, di D. Kelly & Co., for $45,607.76, and a debt due rected to their address, without naming it. C to Todd for $47,181.60. The prayer of the bill H. Carlton, upon whom, as attorney of Wool was that the lands of the estate might be sold and folk and wife, it appeared that a copy of the the proceeds distributed among the creditors. order had been served, filed a writing in the On August 30, 1867, the plaintiffs in the orig- case, in which he said he was not their attor inal bill, including William H. Tood and Jo-ney, but the attorney of Todd, the petitioner seph S. Woolfolk and Lucy D., his wife, filed a supplemental bill of revivor, in which, among other things, they averred the pendency of an intervention filed by Woolfolk and wife in the Chancery Court of Jefferson County, in the| State of Kentucky, praying to have the debt due them satisfied out of the property of the es

Upon this petition the Chicot Circuit Court made an order that Woolfolk and wife answer the same on or before the third day of the next term, and that in default thereof the petition should be taken as confessed, and that servied of the order, "by letter or on attorneys of said parties, be sufficient service thereof."

and disclaimed any interest in the cause on be half of Woolfolk. Upon these facts the cour decided that there had been sufficient service o the order.

Todd having died, the Chicot County Circu Court, on January 23, 1880, by its order entere in the case of The Creditors of Craig v. Emma.

Executrix, and others, made L. H. his administrator, plaintiff in his upon the same day decreed, among ng that said L. H. Springer, as adof Todd, "have and recover of and Ley D. Woolfolk and Joseph H. Wool1 the sim of $37,995.65 out of the said funds au's in their hands" of the estate of JunCraig, "and that payment thereof be d by execution as upon executions at "decree was based upon the report of a war who returned into court none of the ev<if there was any, upon which it was

by the facts appearing of record, unless one or
both of the defenses set up in the answers of
Smith were maintained.

We shall consider first the defense of set-off based upon the record of the proceedings and decree of the Circuit Court of Chicot County. We are of opinion that the decree of the Chicot Circuit Court, made on the 28th day of October, 1868, was, so far as it concerned Joseph H. Woolfolk and Lucy D., his wife, a final decree in the cause, and they were bound to take no notice of the subsequent proceedings, unless they were served with process or entered their voluntary appearance. By that decree the rights of the parties then before the court, as stated in 3 the decree just recited was made, the original bill, and all the assets of the estate Tak, on October 27, 1879, brought in the of Craig actually or constructively within the Court of the United States for the East- jurisdiction of the court, were disposed of. It of Arkansas the present suit, to en-is true the receiver was directed by the decree by the foreclosure of the mortgage made to proceed to collect the available assets of the them, payment of one of the two notes estate. But, as has been stated, only a small 430 (the other having been paid), giv- sum barely sufficient to pay the receiver's comTodd to him for the share of Mrs. Wool-pensation, was collected by him, and this he the proceeds of the sale of the Belle- was allowed to retain by the decree of the court. tation. L. H. Springer, the admin- The petition filed by Todd, and the proceedings of Todd's estate, and Ben. H. Smith, thereon subsequent to the decree of October 28, bere the death of Todd had acquired all 1868, had no reference to any additional assets to the mortgaged premises, were made collected by the receiver after that date.

his answer insisted upon his right the decree rendered against Woolfolk favor of the administrator of Todd's by the Circuit Court of Chicot County, ry 23, 1880, and set up the seven years' Limitations of the State of Arkansas

of the suit.

the admastrato?, adopted the anth, and offered to set off so much decree in favor of To mentioned in e of Smith, as would satisfy the dethe plaintiff.

k, whose deposition was taken, testi October, 1868, Carlton, on whom the court above mentioned was dot been his attorney, and that he ad ever heard of the petition of Todd her the final decree had been rendered and that his wife, Lucy D. Woolfolk, 1976, four years before the entry that from the year 1856 until her ad resided in Kentucky, and that he there all his life.

If the matter set up in the petition of Todd had been offered as an amendment to the original bill when the latter was on final hearing and Woolfolk and wife were before the court, there is no rule of equity pleading and practice or of the jurisprudence of Arkansas by which such an amendment could have been allowed and have become the basis of a decree. Shields v. Barrow, 17 How., 130 [58 U. S., bk. 15, L. ed. 158]; Hardin v. Boyd, 113 U. S., 756 [Bk. 28, L. ed. 1141]; Walker v. Byers, 14 Ark., 246. As was said by this court in Shields v. Barrow, ubi supra, "it is far better to require the complainant to begin anew. To insert a wholly different case is not properly an amendment and should not be considered within the rules on that subject.' So that even if the decree made on the original bill was not final, the petition filed by Todd was so radical a departure from the case made and relief prayed by the original bill as to be a new suit and require service of process on the parties made defendant thereto. It instituted a new litigation on new and distinct issues not raised by the original pleadings, and between parties who were complainants in the original cause.

of the receiver to Todd for the me partation was executed on October appeared from the evidence that It is settled that one defendant cannot have a and the appellant Smith, who claimed decree against a codefendant without a cross as been in possession of the mort- bill, with proper prayer, and process or answer, ever since that date. as in an original suit. Walker v. Byers [supra]; Aaring, the Circuit Court,on No-Gantt's Dig., § 4559; Cullum v. Erwin, 4 Ala., rendered a decree in favor of the 452: Cummings v. Gill, 6 Ala., 562; Shelby v. 743, to bear interest from the Smith, 2 A. K. Marsh, 504. It follows, from e, and in default of payment the reason of this rule, that if one complainant the mortgaged premises to sat can, under any circumstances, have a decree From this decree the defendants, against another upon a supplemental or amended Eh and Springer, adminis bill, it must be upon notice to the latter. After To Lave appealed. a decree disposing of the issues and in accordPW. Compton and A. H. Gar-ance with the prayer of a bill had been made, terrenu

I. X. Rose, for appellee.

Woods delivered the opinion of

fe Circuit Court was justified

it is not competent for one of the parties,
without a service of new process or appearance,
to institute further proceedings on new issues
and for new objects, although connected with
the subject-matter of the original litigation by
merely giving the new proceedings the title of

[148]