Opinion of the Court.

their maturity for which no other provision has been made. This is, in our opinion, the legal equivalent of a payment of the liability of the company in accordance with the original terms on which it was created. By the acts under which the payment was made the money was appropriated for use in this particular way. In the meantime it was to be kept invested until that use could be made, the company indemnifying the state against its liability for interest in the meantime. A statute having such an effect violates neither the letter nor the spirit of the constitution, which was no doubt intended, as was said by the Supreme Court of Missouri in the case just cited, to prevent the "frittering away" and "extinguishment" of "the liens held by the state on railroads" without payment in full. The payment in this case in the way which the statutes contemplate will be the complete legal equivalent of such a "payment in full."

It is next contended that this suit cannot be maintained because it is in its effect a suit against the state, which is prohibited by the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and Louisiana v. Jumel, 107 U. S. 711, is cited in support of this position. But this case is entirely different from that. There the effort was to compel a state officer to do what a statute prohibited him from doing. Here the suit is to get a state officer to do what a statute requires of him. The litigation is with the officer, not the state. The law makes it his duty to assign the liens in question to the trustees when they make a certain payment. The trustees claim they have made this payment. The officer says they have not, and there is no controversy about his duty if they have. The only inquiry is, therefore, as to the fact of a payment according to the requirements of the law. If it has been made, the trustees are entitled to their decree. If it has not, a decree in their favor, as the case now stands, must be denied; but as the parties are all before the court, and the suit is in equity, it may be retained so as to determine what the trustees must do in order to fulfil the law, and under what circumstances the Governor can be compelled to execute the assignment which has been provided for.

Statement of Facts.

The decree of the Circuit Court is reversed, so far as it fixed the amount to be paid to get an assignment of the lien, and the cause remanded with instructions to strike out the sum of $476,049.47, with interest from May 11, 1883, as the amount found due, and insert in lieu thereof $153,646.46, and interest at the rate of three per cent. per annum from October 3, 1882. In all other respects the decree is affirmed, each party to pay its own costs in this court, the expenses of printing the record and the fees of the clerk for supervision to be taxed one half to each.

MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD took no part in the decision of this case.

GRIER. WILT.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR

THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE.

Submitted January 24, 1886.- Decided March 7, 1887.

In view of the state of the art, claim 4 of letters-patent No. 190,368, granted to Asa Quincy Reynolds, May 1, 1877, for an "improvement in automatic fruit-driers,” uamely, “4. In combination with a fruit-drier, the outer wall of which is made up of the frames of the several trays, as explained, a suspending device, operating substantially as described, and supporting said drier from a point in or on the lowermost tray thereof, for the objects named," is not infringed by an apparatus constructed in accordance with the description in letters-patent No. 221,056, granted to George S. Grier, October 28, 1879, for au "improvement in fruit-driers." In a suit in equity for the infringement of letters-patent, prior letters-patent, though not set up in the answer, are receivable in evidence to show the state of the art, and to aid in the construction of the claim of the patent sued on, though not to invalidate that claim on the ground of want of novelty, when properly construed.

This was a bill in equity to prevent the infringement of letters-patent. Decree for a perpetual injunction, from which the defendants appealed. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

Opinion of the Court.

Mr. F. O. McCleary for appellant.

Mr. Samuel A. Duncan and Mr. Leonard E. Curtis for appellee.

MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a suit in equity brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Delaware, by John F. Wilt against George S. Grier, for the infringement of letters-patent No. 190,368, granted to Asa Quincy Reynolds, May 1, 1877, for an "improvement in automatic fruit-driers." The specification, drawings, and claims of the patent are as follows:

"Figure 1 [p. 414] is a partial section and elevation of my improved fruit-drier, showing the same as being located over an ordinary stove, and illustrating a simple means of elevating the machine. Fig. 2 [p. 415] is a similar view, showing the drier as located over a large furnace, as in the most extensive dryhouses. Fig. 3 [p. 416] is a perspective view, illustrating the improved drier in a position removed from over an ordinary cooking-stove. Fig. 4 [p. 417] is a perspective view of a fragment of a square tray or section, showing more plainly the metallic lining and the sockets and pins, which may be conveniently used in this form of tray. Fig. 5 [p. 418] is a similar view of a fragment of a round tray or section, showing also the tin or metallic lining. Like letters of reference in all the figures indicate corresponding parts.

"The object of my invention is to simplify the construction of the fruit-driers in common use, both for domestic and factory purposes, reducing the cost, increasing the efficiency, and rendering them easier to be manipulated, and at the same time fire-proof, and capable of being enlarged or contracted at the pleasure of the operator; to accomplish all of which it (the invention) consists in certain details of construction and combination of parts, as will be hereinafter fully described, and then pointed out in the claims.

"In Fig. 1, N is an ordinary stove or heating-drum, over which is located the drier, consisting of a number of trays so constructed as that any one will receive a similar one above