in legal effect. Upon this state of the record the reissue was denied, on the ground that the claim had been cancelled by the duly authorized attorney of the applicant, and that, having been cancelled and the patent issued without it, he is not entitled to a reissue covering that identical claim. The case is here on appeal from that decision.

The sole question presented is whether, under these circumstances, Hatchman is entitled to a reissue to protect the disallowed claim on the ground that the same had been rejected by inadvertence, accident and mistake, and without any fraudulent or deceptive intention.

We are of opinion that on an application for a patent, when one of the claims presented is covered by previous inventions and the patents therefor are referred to, and the Examiner upon such reference decides against such claim, and the applicant thereupon, by his attorney, orders the same to be erased and withdrawn, and thus obtains and accepts a patent for the residue of his claims, he is not entitled to a reissued patent containing the identical claim which he has so erased and withdrawn. We also hold that under such circumstances no error has arisen by inadvertence, accident or mistake, within the meaning of the patent law, which would authorize the Commissioner to entertain the application for a reissue. We, therefore, think that the decision appealed from ought to be affirmed, and the appeal ismissed. Let the proper order be prepared.

LOUISA ULRICH vs. CHARLES ULRICH ET AL.

EQUITY. No. 8005.

Decided November 12, 1883.

The CHIEF JUSTICE and Justices Cox and JAMES sitting. Plaintiff filed his bill for divorce and alimony, setting forth that the defendant was the owner of a certain lot in Washington, and alleging that it was all the properties he owned except a small amount of house furniture; and praying that this real estate be subjected to her claim for alimony. Before the filing of the bill the defendant owned two shares of stock in a building association, upon which the association had loaned him $214, taking therefor a bond which stated the amount loaned to be $1,000. This bond was secured by a deed of trust upon the real estate in question. After the filing of the bill the defendant repaid this $214, but subsequently purchased other shares upon which the association made a further loan or advance, under the supposition that the bond and deed of trust first given secured future advances, and that this last loan would be covered by them. Subsequently to this the court passed a decree granting $25 a month alimony.

Held, 1st, That the recital in the bond that the loan was for $1,000, was not binding, and that the court could look into the real fact of the case to ascertain what amount was really loaned; 2. That the bond had no reference on its face to any future transaction; 3. That the second loan was entirely independent of the first; 4. That the plaintiff's suit was a lis pendens, and charged all persons with notice that the plaintiff was seeking to subject the property described to a decree for alimony ; that the defendant having paid the first loan of $214, discharged the property from the lien of the trust, and that the subsequent loan having been made penden'e lite, was postponed to the lien of the plaintiff for her alimony. But as between the association and the defendant the bond and deed of trust were security for the subsequent loan.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

The original bill in this cause was filed January 19, 1882, and the defendant Ulrich was summoned to answer the following day. The bill was for divorce, the custody of the five infant children, and alimony. Paragraph four of the bill averred: "That the defendant is the owner in fee of the lot situate at the northeast corner of 8th and L streets, in square 929, in said city of Washington; that the same is improved, and rents at $25 per month, and is worth about $2,500. This property was earned by the joint labor of both the complainant and defendant in the first years of

their married life." It further alleged that this was the only property owned by the defendant. The second prayer of the bill was: "That the court may restrain the defendant from selling or incumbering the said real estate until the further order of the court."

March 20, 1882, the court decreed that defendant pay to plaintiff alimony pendente lite at the rate of $25 per month, and the defendant be restrained from collecting the rents until further order.

June 15, 1882, a final decree was passed dissolving the bond of matrimony, giving the custody of all the children to the plaintiff, and fixing alimony at $25 per month, and authorizing and empowering the plaintiff to collect the rent of the premises in question, and restraining and enjoining the defendant "from collecting or interfering in any manner with said rents, or in any way disposing of said property until the further order of the court."

May 12, 1882, a supplemental bill was filed, making the Washington Building and Savings Association No. 4 a party. It averred that defendant Ulrich, on the 29th day of August, 1879, made his bond to the treasurer of said association in the sum of $1,000, and on the same day the defendant, Ulrich, and the plaintiff, his wife, executed an ordinary deed of trust, upon the property in question, to secure the performance of the conditions of the bond.

The bond was as follows:

"Washington Building and Savings Association No. 4. "Know all men by these presents, that I, Chas. Otto Ulrich, of the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia, am held and firmly bound unto Lorenz Kissner, treasurer of the Washington Building and Savings Association No 4, of the city of Washington, in the just and full sum of one thousand dollars, current money of the United States, to be paid unto the said Lorenz Kissner, treasurer as aforesaid, or to his successor in office, for which payment, well and truly to be made in the manner following, I bind myself, my heirs, executors and administrators. Sealed with

my seal, and dated this twenty-ninth day of August, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-nine.

"Whereas, the said Chas. Otto Ulrich, a stockholder to the extent of five shares in the said association, has, by virtue of and in accordance with the provisions of the constitution of the said association, and the obligation attached thereto, received from the said association the sum of one thousand dollars.

"Now, if the said Chas. Otto Ulrich, or his heirs, executors or administrators, shall well and truly pay or cause to be paid unto the said Lorenz Kissner, treasurer as aforesaid, or to his successor in office, the sum of two dollars on each of his shares of stock held by him, on which money has been advanced to him, monthly and every month, commencing from the date hereof, and continue to pay the same on the second Monday of each and every month thereafter, and also all fines and forfeitures which may be imposed upon or incurred by the said Chas. Otto Ulrich by virtue of the provisions of the said constitution, until the close of the said association, or return of the money advanced to him, then this obligation to be void, or else to remain in full force and virtue in law.

"C. OTTO ULRICH."

The supplemental bill further averred that the debt under the above bond was paid off, with the exception of a few dollars at the time of the filing of the original bill, January 19, 1882, and that the purposes for which the bond and deed of trust were given, had been executed; but that, after the filing of the original bill, the association advanced to Ulrich about the sum of $750, and was seeking to hold the property responsible therefor under the bond and deed of trust. The supplemental bill concluded with prayers for an accounting and settlement, and for discovery, injunction, &c. The association answered through its secretary and treasurer. Whereupon, on November 20, 1882, the cause was, by order of the court, referred to the auditor to take the evidence, and report: First. "The amount of the in

debtedness, if any, that was due from defendant Charles Otto Ulrich to the defendant building association at the time the original bill was filed, and secured by the deed of trust, mentioned in the supplemental bill, upon the real estate described in these proceedings." Secondly. "The amount the said building association advanced to defendant Charles Otto Ulrich after the filing of said original bill, and whether the same is secured by the said deed of trust as a lien upon said real estate." And, thirdly, "The amount of the debt due the said defendant building association by defendant Charles Otto Ulrich, and secured by the said deed of trust as a lien upon the said real estate described in the supplemental bill."

The auditor filed his report to the effect that there was due at the date of filing the original bill $55.36; that the amount advanced to Charles Otto Ulrich after the filing of the original bill was $556; and that the balance due at date of report was $447.90, which he reported as a lien on the property, secured by the bond and mortgage mentioned.

A verified transcript of the accounts, furnished by the secretary and filed in the cause, showed that on August 29, 1879, the association advanced to Ulrich on the bond $214. That this amount was reduced by sundry payments, until March 21, 1882, when Ulrich paid $160, which exceeded the amount found due by the auditor by $104.64, but on March 23, 1882, the association advanced $556, thereby bringing Ulrich again into its debt in the sum of $441.36, which, by the accumulation of interest, became $447.90.

January 6, 1883, the complainant filed the following exceptions to the auditor's report. (1.) That the auditor erred in holding that the deed of trust was a security for future advances. (2.) The auditor erred in not reporting the extinguishment of the debt due at that time by defendant Ulrich to the association, by the payment of $160, mentioned in Schedule "C," the same having been made March 21, 1882, as appears from the transcript filed in this cause of the accounts between defendant Ulrich and the association, at which time Ulrich was indebted to the association in the sum of $51.90, as per