FORM IV.- ANSWER. Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. JOHN HALFORD AND RICHARD DAVIS against HENRY HAWES. In Equity. The answer of the above-named defendant to the bill of complaint of the above-named plaintiffs. In answer to the said bill, I, Henry Hawes, say as follows: 1. I admit that I was on the first day of June, 1864, seized in fee-simple of the premises in the first paragraph of the said bill mentioned. And I admit that the indenture in the said first paragraph of the said bill mentioned was of such date, and made between such parties as in the first said paragraph of the said bill alleged, and that the same was executed by me. I believe that the said indenture was not executed by Henry Baker in the said bill mentioned. I believe that the said indenture was of or to the purport and effect in the said first paragraph of the said bill in that behalf set forth; but for my greater certainty I crave to refer to the same when produced to this Honorable Court. 2. I do not know and cannot set forth as to my belief or otherwise, whether the said Henry Baker died on the seventh day of May, 1867, or when he died; or whether or not having by his will and whether or not dated the tenth day of January, 1867, or of what other date, devised to the plaintiffs and their heirs, all estates vested in him by way of mortgage, or appointed the plaintiffs to be his executors; nor whether the said will was or not on the first day of July, 1867, or when, in fact, proved by the plaintiffs in the Surrogate's Court for the city and county of New York, or how otherwise; nor whether the said plaintiffs thereby or in fact became, nor whether they now are, the legal personal representatives of the said Henry Baker; but I have no reason to doubt that the facts are as in that behalf alleged in the said bill, 3. The said Henry Baker was a bachelor, without any near relations, and for many years previously to the year 1864, and thenceforward to his death, he suffered from continual ill-health and infirmity. My mother, Sarah Hawes, was in the service of the said Henry Baker as housekeeper from the year 1855 down to the time of the death of the said Henry Baker, and was in continual attendance upon him; and the said Henry Baker frequently expressed to my said mother his gratitude for her attention to his comfort in that his illness. 4. I attained my age of twenty-one years in the year 1864. In the early part of that year my said mother applied to the said Henry Baker to advance me the sum of one thousand dollars to enable me to enter business, which he agreed to do on having the repayment thereof with interest secured by the said indenture of the first day of June, 1864. 5. In the month of May, 1864, the said Henry Baker wrote, signed, and sent to me a letter bearing no date, containing the words and figures following (that is to say): "All is arranged about the security you are to give me. I hope I shall never have occasion to enforce it; and that nothing will compel me to change my intention of rewarding your mother and yourself for her long and faithful services to me," - as by such letter when produced will appear. 6. I have never made any payments whatsoever on account of interest due on the said indenture, and I was never called upon to pay interest thereon by the said Henry Baker in his lifetime. 7. My said mother died on the twenty-seventh day of December, 1867. 8. Under the circumstances herein before appearing I submit that nothing is due on the said indenture from me to the plaintiffs, whether as such alleged personal representatives or otherwise, but I admit that nothing has ever been paid on account of the principal money secured thereby. 9. I do not know, and cannot set forth, as to my belief or otherwise, whether the plaintiffs did on the seventh day of April, 1873, discover, but I admit that it is the fact, that I intend to pull down the said house in the said bill mentioned, and that I have advertised the bricks composing the same to be sold as building materials. I deny that it is true that I have entered into a contract with John Smithers or with any other person for the execution of the work of pulling down the same. 10. I admit that if the said house be pulled down, the said premises would be an insufficient security for the sum of one thousand dollars with interest thereon at the rate of five per centum per annum from the first day of June, 1864. But I submit that I have a right to pull down the said house, and to sell the bricks composing the same as building materials, and that the injunction awarded against me by this Honorable Court on the sixteenth day of April, 1873, ought to be dissolved, and that the said bill ought to be dismissed with costs. HENRY HAWES. ROBERT JONES, Solicitor for Henry Hawes, 111 Broadway, New York. DEFENDANT'S OATH TO ANSWER. STATE OF NEW YORK, City and County of New York, Southern District of New York. Henry Hawes, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I am the abovenamed defendant. So much of the foregoing answer as concerns my own acts and deeds is true to the best of my own knowledge; and so much thereof as concerns the acts or deeds of any other person or persons, I believe to be true. HENRY HAWES. Sworn to before me this 20th day of July, 1875. [SEAL] SYLVANUS BROWN, FORM V.-BILLS OF REVIVOR. United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York. against EMMA L. HIGGINS, EUGENE HIGGINS and JOSEPHINE BROOKS, as Executors of the last Will and Testament of ELIAS S. HIGGINS, Deceased, and JULES REYNAL and JOHN H. HIGGINS, surviving trustees, and NATHALIE FLORENCE REYNAL, residuary legatee under the last Will and Testament of NATHANIEL D. HIGGINS, deceased. In Equity. To the Honorable the Judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York: The Webster Loom Company, a Corporation organized under and pursuant to the Laws of the State of New York, and having its principal place of business in the City of New York in said State, brings this its bill of revivor against Emma L. Higgins, Eugene Higgins and Josephine Brooks, as Executors of the last Will and Testament of Elias S. Higgins, deceased, and Jules Reynal and John H. Higgins, surviving trustees,- and Nathalie Florence Reynal, residuary legatee under the last Will and Testament of Nathaniel D. Higgins, deceased. Said Emma L. Higgins, Jose. phine Brooks, Eugene Higgins, Jules Reynal, John H. Higgins, and Nathalie Florence Reynal being citizens of the State of New York and residents of the City of New York in said State; and thereupon your orator complains and says that on or about the 19th day of June, 1874, your orator filed a bill in equity in this Court against Elias S. Higgins and Nathaniel D. Higgins, alleging infringement by them of certain Letters Patent of the United States, which were Numbered No. 130,961 and dated August 27th, 1872, of which your orator was at that time, and is now, the owner. That thereafter the said Elias S. Higgins and Nathaniel D. Higgins, having been duly served with the writ of subpoena, appeared by Counsel and filed their Answer to said Bill of Complaint, to which answer a replication was filed on the part of your orator. That thereafter your crator proceeded to take proof in support of its said bill of complaint; and thereafter said defendants proceeded to take proofs in support of their said answer and in defense of said actions. That thereafter said suit was brought to final hearing before the Honorable Hoyt H. Wheeler; that said Judge filed his decision on the 31st day of May, 1879, adjudging invalidity of the fifth claim of the patent- being the claim in suit - and dismissing the said bill of complaint, as by reference to said decision reported in 15 Blatchford, 446, will more fully and at large appear. That thereafter your orator appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States from the decision of the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York; that the said appeal was argued before said Supreme Court of the United States, and a décision made by said Court, the opinion being written by Mr. Justice Bradley, adjudging the validity of said patent and that defendants had infringed the same, and remanded the cause to this Court, ordering a decree against said defendants restraining them from further infringement, and also granting a reference to a Master to ascer tain and report damages and profits caused by said infringement,- all of which will more fully and at large appear by reference to said decision reported in 15 Otto, 580. That thereafter the accounting in this cause was commenced and voluminous proofs taken. That thereafter the Master filed his report awarding nominal damages to your orator, against said defendants. That thereafter, on exceptions duly filed to said report, argument was had before His Honor Judge Shipman on motion to confirm said Master's report; that said Judge filed an opinion on the 26th day of July, 1889, recommitting said accounting to the Master for further action in accordance with the said opinion. That no order has yet been entered on Judge Shipman's decision. That during the pendency of said accounting the defendant Nathaniel D. Higgins died, leaving a last Will and Testament, which on the 31st day of January, 1882, was admitted to probate in the Surrogate's Court of New York County, New York, and letters executory thereupon were on said 31st day of January, 1882, duly issued out of said Surrogate's Court unto Elias S. Higgins, Jules Reynal and John H. Higgins. That said Will, after directing the payment of an inconsiderable percentage of the testator's estate as specified legacies to certain persons therein named, directed the said executors to hold in trust for the benefit of the testator's grandchildren, for a period of time that has not yet expired, the sum of One Million and Five hundred thousand dollars, and to pay the rest and residue of testator's estate unto his daughter Nathalie Florence Reynal. That on the 31st day of December, 1888, said executors filed their final accounting in the office of the Surrogate of the County of New York, N. Y., whereby it appeared that they had paid said specific legacies, and that after paying to Nathalie F. Reynal aforesaid a sum amounting to between three and four millions of dollars, they still retained in trust for the benefit of said grandchildren of said testator the sum of One Million and Five hundred thousand dollars. That said account was approved by said Surrogate and an order was entered in the Court of said Surrogate on the 31st day of December, 1888, discharging and releasing said Elias S. Higgins, Jules Reynal and John H. Higgins from their duties as executors under said last Will and Testa ment, but directing them to continue to hold said trust fund of One Million and Five hundred thousand dollars as directed in said last Will and Testament. That said Elias S. Higgins, Jules Reynal and John H. Higgins thenceforth continued to so act as trustees under said Will as to said trust fund, and said Jules Reynal and John H. Higgins are now so acting. That the aforesaid Elias S. Higgins died upon the 18th day of August, 1889, leaving a last Will and Testament, which on the 14th day of September, 1889, was admitted to probate in the Surrogate's Court of New York County, New York, and letters executory thereupon were on said 14th day of September, 1889, duly issued out of said Surrogate's Court unto Emma L. Higgins, Eugene Higgins and Josephine Brooks, and still remain in full force and virtue. Wherefore, your orator prays that the said cause may be revived by the decree of this Honorable Court, and that it may proceed to a decree in its favor in accordance with the prayer of the original bill of complaint herein. Your orator further prays that a writ of subpoena may issue in due form of law, directed to the aforesaid defendants Emma L. Higgins, Eugene Higgins and Josephine Brooks, as Executrices and Executor of the Estate of Elias S. Higgins, deceased, and Jules Reynal and John H. Higgins as trustees, and Nathalie Florence Reynal as residuary legatee under the Will of Nathaniel D. Higgins, deceased, and requiring them to appear and show cause, if any they have, why this cause should not be revived; and if no cause shall be shown by said defendants why said suit should not be revived, that a decree be entered reviving said suit in favor of your orator. And your orator will ever pray, etc. BROWN & JONES, WEBSTER LOOM COMPANY, by Solicitors and of Counsel for Complainant, 5 Beekman Street, New York. STATE OF NEW YORK, City and County of New York.} SS. William G. Smith, being duly sworn, says that he resides in the City and County of New York, and is the President of the Webster Loom Company, the complainant herein; that he has read the foregoing bill of revivor and knows the contents thereof, and that the same is true of his own knowledge. Deponent further says that the reason why this verification is not made by the complainant is, that it is a Corporation; that deponent is an officer of the same, to wit, President. WM. G. SMITH. Sworn to before me this 3d day of December, 1889. [SEAL] A. G. N. VERMILYE, FORM VI.-NOTICE OF TAKING TESTIMONY IN EQUITY. Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Notice is hereby given, that we shall proceed to take proofs for final hearing on the part of the complainant under the 67th Rule of the Supreme Court for courts in equity, as amended, or in accordance with the statutes in such case made and provided, and in pursuance of the rules |