Opinion of the Court.

frequently operates to rupture either the cloth or the seams, or both, at the vicinity of the said crotch.

"To this end my invention consists in the use, in connection with the fly, of a check-piece or strip of cloth or other inelastic pliable material, arranged to bridge over and protect from tensional strain the crotch of said fly, as will be hereinafter more fully described;" and these were the claims:

"1. The combination, with the fly of a pair of pantaloons or other similar garment, of an inelastic bridge or check-piece arranged across the crotch of the fly, and operating substantlally as described, to receive any strain occasioned by the spreading apart of the fly, and which would otherwise be exerted upon the crotch of the fly.

"2. In combination with the fly portion of a pair of pantaloons or other similar garment, a check-piece made integral with the button-hole strip of the fly, and adapted to prevent any tension at the crotch that might operate injuriously upon

it."

On proofs, the case went to final hearing before Judge Shipman, who, on the 14th of May, 1887, filed an opinion adverse to the appellant, and directed a dismissal of the bill. On a rehearing, a further opinion was delivered, the two opinions being found in 31 Federal Reporter, pages 816 and 818; and on August 4, 1887, the decree was entered, which, after reciting the hearing and rehearing, reads: "Now, upon due consideration of the same, and the court being of opinion that the second claim of reissued patent No. 9616, granted to Rodmond Gibbons on the 22d day of March, 1881, is invalid, unless it is limited to the bridge or check-piece of the original claim, and with that construction there is no infringement: It is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the bill of complaint in said cause be, and the same hereby is, dismissed," etc.

It will be seen from this decree, and more fully from the opinions, that the conclusion of the trial judge was that the second claim of the reissue was an enlargement of the single claim of the original patent, and therefore invalid; or if not and it could be properly construed as describing the same thing, that that which was done by the defendant was no in

Opinion of the Court.

fringement. It is unnecessary to review these opinions or determine whether there be, as the court found, any such yariation and enlargement. There is a more grievous and radical defect in the appellant's case. There is not in the matter described and exhibited in any of the specifications or claims any invention within the meaning of that word as developed in recent decisions of this court, Hollister v. Benedict & Burnham Man'f'g Co., 113 U. S. 59; Thompson v. Boisselier, 114 U. S. 1, 11; Howe Machine Co. v. National Needle Co., 134 U. S. 388; McClain v. Ortmayer, ante, 419; and for that reason both patents, original and reissue, were void.

What is it that the patentee claims to have invented? Formerly the button and button-hole strips in the fly of pantaloons were separate pieces, whose lower ends being placed face to face were sewed together, and thus formed the crotch. Of course, then, any strain at the crotch was resisted by only the direct strength of the thread. The idea of the patentee was to add to the strength of the thread the strength of a piece of cloth, and this he did by a strip crossing the crotch as a bridge, and running up along the button and button-hole strips and fastened to them respectively. The strain, therefore, at this place would be resisted both by the thread and this strip of cloth, or inelastic bridge, as the patentee called it. A similar result was obtained when either one of these strips, the button or button-hole, was made longer than the other, and the longer one, instead of running downward into the crotch, was turned at that place and used as a bridge across it, and then ran up along the side of the other strip and was fastened to it. By either of these processes the tension was placed largely upon the strip of cloth, instead of solely upon the thread. But this was no new idea; it is as old as pantaloons themselves. It has been illustrated in the experience of every boy, for in his sports he not infrequently tears his pantaloons; and his good mother, not content with sewing the torn ends together, and thus holding them by the direct strength of the thread, is wont to place underneath a piece of cloth, and fasten it to the main body of the garment for some distance on either side of the tear. In this way the whole strain, which otherwise would be solely

Syllabus.

on the threads closing the tear, is largely borne by the new cloth underneath. Surely when this idea is so well known, and has been so practically illustrated for generations, it cannot be that there was any exercise of the skill of an inventor in applying the same process to any part of the pantaloons. If it be said that the strengthening of the stay-piece here applied is not to the closing of a tear, but to a seam at an angle, it may be replied that such particular form of reinforcement is itself no new thing. An illustration is in the seam at the angle made by the fingers and thumb of gloves. As to that, it appears from the testimony that the practice was old of reinforcing the seam by an overlapping piece. Other illustrations are also furnished by the testimony, but it is hardly necessary to refer to these in detail. The matter is familiar to the knowl edge of all, and surely the application of this reinforcing strip of cloth to any seam, or in any place where without it the tension would be solely on the threads, cannot be an exercise of the skill of an inventor.

We think, therefore, that the patent sued on was void for want of patentable novelty, and affirm the decree.

Affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY and MR. JUSTICE GRAY did not hear the argument or take part in the decision of this case.

FIRE INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, LIMITED v. WICKHAM.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN.

No. 59. Argued October 28, 1891. - Decided November 16, 1891.

Parol testimony is admissible to show the circumstances under which a written instrument was executed, or that it was, in fact, without consideration.

Where the facts clearly show that a certain sum is due from one person to another, a release of the entire sum upon payment of part is without

Statement of the Case.

consideration, and the creditor may still sue for and recover the residue : but, if there be a bona fide dispute as to the amount due, that dispute may be the subject of a compromise.

When a claim not yet due is prepaid in part by the debtor, such prepayment may operate as a discharge of the whole claim if both parties intended it to be a consideration for such discharge; and whether hoth parties so intended is a question for the jury.

Circumstances attending the execution of a receipt in full of all demands, may be given in evidence to show that by mistake it was made to express more than was intended, and that the creditor had, in fact, claims that were not included.

The plaintiff took out fire insurance policies upon a vessel in 10 companies to the amount of $40,000 in all. The vessel took fire, and, in order to save it, it was scuttled and sunk, and the fire thus extinguished. It was then raised, taken to port, and repaired. The loss by fire, exclusive of the expense of raising the vessel, etc., was $15,364.78. The owner made claim upon the insurers for this amount for "loss and damage by fire and water as per agreement," stating that he would make further claims "for expenses of raising the propeller," and was" preparing the statement of such expenses to submit with his subsequent claim." The companies declined to pay such subsequent claim, but paid in advance the amount of the loss by fire so stated, taking receipts, expressed to be in full of all claims for loss or damage by fire, and in which it was further stated that the policies were cancelled and surrendered. The parties further signed a paper in which "the loss and damage by fire" was certified at that aggregate amount, "payable without discount upon presentation," and the amount was apportioned among the several companies. In an action brought by the owner to recover from the companies the amount of the claim for raising and saving the vessel, some $15,000, it was Held,

(1) That parol evidence was admissible to explain the receipts, and to show that they were not intended to cover the claim for raising, etc.;

(2) That the paper so signed by the parties was not in the nature of a contract on the part of the owner.

THE Court stated the case as follows:

This case was brought before the court upon a certificate of division of opinion between the circuit and the district judges. The action was begun in November, 1884, upon two policies of fire insurance written by the Fire Insurance Association, defendant, upon the propeller St. Paul, of which defendants in error were owners, one of such policies being for $3500, and the other for $1500. On the same day actions

Statement of the Case.

were begun against six other insurance companies upon their policies on the same vessel, and an order was subsequently made that all the actions so commenced should abide the event and final determination of the one which the plaintiffs should elect to try. The following facts appeared upon the trial: In 1883, the plaintiffs, who were the owners of the propeller St. Paul, engaged in navigating the great lakes, obtained upon her fire insurance policies in ten companies, to the amount of $40,000. Plaintiffs also had $45,000 of insurance by marine policies on the same vessel at the same time. In all of these policies save one, it was provided that in case of loss by fire, the loss should be payable in sixty days after proofs of loss had been filed with the company. On November 10, 1883, while on a voyage from the lower lakes to Lake Superior, a fire broke out in the hold of the vessel, and to save her and her cargo she was scuttled and sunk, and the fire thus extinguished. She was subsequently raised and brought to Detroit for repairs, where she arrived on the 19th of November, and immediately began to discharge her cargo. A few days thereafter, and while her cargo was being unloaded, another fire broke out in her hold, and she was again sunk for the purpose of saving her, and was afterwards raised at considerable expense. On the 15th of December, a written agreement was entered into between the plaintiffs and the adjusting agents of the several insurance companies for the purpose of appraising the amount of loss caused by these fires, with a stipulation that the agreement should be "of binding effect only as far as regards the actual cash value of or damage to such property covered by policies of said companies issued at their various agencies." It was further added that "the property on which loss or damage is to be estimated and appraised is the hull of the propeller St. Paul, including the tackle, awnings, furniture, engine and boiler connections and appurtenances thereto belonging," with a further memorandum, following the signature of Wickham, but preceding those of the insurance companies, that "this agreement does not apply to or cover any question that may arise for saving boat and cargo." The adjustment under this agreement of the