Opinion of the Court. the circumstances of such delivery and his promises in relation thereto. Objection having been made to her competency as a witness to those facts, the case, on motion of plaintiff's counsel, was withdrawn from the jury and continued. Subsequently, December 13, 1886, Marie R. Liebsch tendered to the proper court her resignation of the office of administratrix. The resignation was accepted on the same day, and the defendant in error appointed administrator de bonis non. On the 1st day of June, 1887, Fiedler, as such administrator de bonis non, filed a written motion asking leave to come in and prosecute the action in place of Marie R. Liebsch, resigned. This motion was allowed by the court "as of December 13, 1886, by consent of both parties.” At the next trial Mrs. Liebsch was offered as a witness in behalf of Fiedler, administrator de bonis non, to testify against the defendants in respect to transactions of herself and husband with Snyder, and to statements by the latter to them tending to sustain the cause of action set out in the declaration. The defendants objected to her competency as a witness to prove such transactions and statements, unless called by them, or required to testify thereto by the court. The objection was overruled, and she was permitted to testify as to those transactions and statements. Her testimony was material and she was the only witness called by the plaintiff, except one who testified as to the administration proceedings. The plaintiff's counsel claimed at the trial that $1400 had been paid to Mrs. Liebsch by Snyder in his lifetime, but after the death of Francis J. Liebsch, and that this payment should be deducted. There was a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff Fiedler, administrator de bonis non, for $6684. In the courts of the United States no person can be excluded as a witness in a civil action by reason of being "a party to or interested in the issue tried," except "that in actions by or against executors, administrators or guardians in which judgment may be rendered for or against them, neither party shall be allowed to testify against the other, as to any transaction with or statement by the testator, intestate or ward, unless called to testify thereto by the opposite party or required to Opinion of the Court. testify thereto by the court." Rev. Stat. § 858; 12 Stat. c. 189, p. 588; 13 Stat. c. 210, § 3, p. 351; 13 Stat. c. 113, p. 533. This exception has no application in the present case. Upon the acceptance of Mrs. Liebsch's resignation as administratrix, and when the order was made allowing her successor, the administrator de bonis non, to prosecute the suit in her place, the action ceased to be one in which she was concerned as a "party," either within the meaning of the present statute, or within the rule, in force prior to its adoption, which excluded as a witness, without reference to his interest in the issue, one who was a party to the record. De Wolf v. Johnson, 10 Wheat. 367, 384; Scott v. Lloyd, 12 Pet. 145; Stein v. Bowman, 13 Pet. 209; Bridges v. Armour, 5 How. 91, 94. It is of no consequence that she stood upon the record as the original plaintiff who sought judgment against the personal representatives of Snyder. As she ceased before the final trial to be administratrix, and as no judgment could have been rendered in her favor, as administratrix, against the administrators of Snyder, she was competent, under the statute, to testify to any transaction with or statement by him relating to the matters in dispute. Her credibility, in view of all the circumstances, was for the jury. The result would not be different even if it had appeared that she was personally interested in the issue tried. Potter v. National Bank, 102 U. S. 163, 164. Judgment affirmed. Opinion of the Court. ELECTRIC GAS-LIGHTING COMPANY v. BOSTON ELECTRIC COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. No. 232. Argued March 20, 1891.- Decided April 6, 1891. Claims 2, 4 and 5 of reissued letters patent No. 9743, granted June 7, 1881, to the Franklin Electric Gas-Lighting Company, as assignee of Jacob P. Tirrell, the inventor, for improvements in electrical apparatus for lighting street lamps, etc., (the original letters patent, No. 130,770, having been granted to said Tirrell, August 20, 1872, and the application for the reissue having been filed February 21, 1881,) are invalid, as against the defendant's apparatus, constructed under letters patent No. 281,345, granted July 17, 1883, to the Boston Electric Company, as assignee of Charles H. Crockett, the inventor, on an application filed April 11, 1883, for improvements in electric gas-lighters. The original patent and the reissue compared, as to the specification and the claims. The state of the art at the date of the invention described in No. 130,770, set forth. The history of the application for the reissue, given. The delay of 8 years in applying for the reissue is not explained; there was no inadvertence, accident or mistake; and the sole object of the reissue was to unlawfully expand the claims. IN equity for the infringement of letters patent. Decree dismissing the bill. Complainant appealed. Mr. Edward P. Payson and Mr. Edwin II. Brown for appellant. Mr. John E. Abbott and Mr. John L. S. Roberts for appellee. MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the court. This is a bill in equity, filed in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts, on the 1st of May, 1884, by the Electric Gas-Lighting Company, a Maine VOL. CXXXIX-31 Opinion of the Court. corporation, against the Boston Electric Company, a Massachusetts corporation, for the alleged infringement of claims 2, 4 and 5 of reissued letters patent No. 9743, granted June 7, 1881, to the Franklin Electric Gas-Lighting Company, as assignee of Jacob P. Tirrell, the inventor, for improvements in electrical apparatus for lighting street lamps, etc., the original letters patent, No. 130,770, having been granted to said Tirrell, August 20, 1872, and the application for the reissue having been filed February 21, 1881. The plaintiff became the owner of the reissued patent by assignment on the 6th of May, 1882. The defences set up in the answer are prior use, want of novelty and patentability, invalidity of the reissue and noninfringement. The Circuit Court dismissed the bill, (29 Fed. Rep. 455,) and the plaintiff has appealed to this court. The alleged infringing apparatus is constructed under letters. patent No. 281,345, granted July 17, 1883, to the defendant, as assignee of Charles H. Crockett, the inventor, on an application filed April 11, 1883, for improvements in electric gaslighters. The only difference of consequence between the original patent, No. 130,770, and the reissue, No. 9743, is in the claims, the text of the two specifications being almost substantially the same, and the drawings differing only as to scale. The specification is as follows, words in the original which are omitted in the reissue being here enclosed in brackets, and words found in the reissue and not found in the original being printed in italics; small letters, which designate parts of the drawings, being printed in italics in both of the specifications: "Be it known, that I, Jacob P. Tirrell, a citizen of the United States, [of Charlestown], residing in West Somerville, in the county of Middlesex and State of Massachusetts, have invented certain new and useful improvements in electrical apparatus for lighting street lamps, etc., and I do hereby declare that the following is a full, clear and exact description of the same, reference being had to the accompanying plates of drawings. This invention relates to that class of electrical apparatus for lighting street lamps in which the current is successively thrown into the magnet at each burner, one after another; and Opinion of the Court. under this invention the circuit-breaker is located at the burner, and, by the direct action of the current through the magnet located at the burner, the circuit-breaker and the valve to let on or turn off the gas are both operated, and the current, after the opening or closing, as the case may be, of the valve to one burner, is completely cut off from the magnet of such burner and thrown into the magnet of [the] next burner, and so on. In the accompanying plates of drawings the present invention is illustrated. In Plates 1 and 2, Figures 1 and 2 are elevations from different sides. In Plate 3, Fig. 3 is a partial plan view and horizontal section; Figs. 4 and 5, [detail] detailed views. “A in the drawings represents a gas-burner, to which B is the feed pipe, provided with two horizontal platforms, C and D, for carrying the apparatus of this invention; E [is] a U magnet horizontally located and secured on the lower platform, C, with the pipe B in and between the legs F of the magnet; G [is] the armature properly located with regard to the magnet E and secured to the lower end of an upright lever, H, turning upon a fulcrum at I of the feed pipe B; J [is] the circuit-breaker, secured [in] to the upper end of the lever H and projecting upwards to the plane of the escape of the gas from the burner; K, a post in upper platform D, and in electrical connection with the earth. At the upper end of the post K is a horizontal platinum arm, b, against which rests the point a of the circuit-breaker J when the lever H is at rest; L [is] a spiral spring applied to lever H to throw back the armature G from the magnet E; O [is] an upright arm. This arm O, at its lower end, is hung upon a fulcrum, d, of an insulator block, e, on platform C, and at its upper end it is in a position to bear against the periphery of a sector-wheel, ƒ, fixed to the spindle g of valve in gas-pipe B; c [is] a bent spring applied to arm O to hold it against the sector-wheel f and when escaping from the periphery thereof, to swing it on its fulcrum. The arm O at P, between its two ends, is insulated. h is a finger-piece projecting horizontally from lower end of arm O. This finger-piece h, at its outer end, lies in a position between the two pins / and m, projecting horizontally |