somewhat forward, until the staple-crown rests upon the face of the guide, B, when another blow is imparted to the driver, and the flat portion of its face descends forcibly on the staple-legs, so as to bend the latter close to the paper, thus completing the operation." The reissue omits the statement of the orig inal that, as the staple-legs strike the slanting walls of the recess, they will be bent inward towards each other sufficiently to insure their being bent down properly when again struck between the faces of the guide, B, and driver, E; and substitutes the statement that, when the staple-legs strike the slanting walls of the recess, they will be bent inward towards each other, as shown in Figs. 2 and 3. The following sentence, not in the original, is found in the reissue: "It will be seen that the staple-support or anvil, A', with the slotted or recessed hammer, operates to insert a staple through layers of stock to be united, and simultaneously bends over its projecting ends." The specification of the reissue then states that the separate operation, described in the original, of flattening down by a second blow the ends of the staple when bent over, was not new; but that the legs of the staple, if not laid sufficiently close to the surface of the paper, when bent over by the driving blow, may be further flattened down by a second blow between flat surfaces. Fig. 5 of the drawings, though contained in the drawings of the original patent, was not described or referred to in the original specification, but the reissued specification speaks of Figs. 1, 2, and 3 as showing a hand-stamp in which the driver reciprocates in a fixed head in the manner of a plunger, while Fig. 5 shows a hand-stamp in which the driver is mounted at the end of a vibrating arm, pivoted at its rear extremity to the base which rests upon the table; that the devices which constitute the invention are found in both of these modifications; and that both operate to insert, by a blow upon the knob, G, of the handstamp, a staple through layers of stock to be united, and to simultaneously bend over the projecting ends in the opposite bending recess provided therefor. On the question of novelty, the alleged prior invention principally relied upon is a patent of the United States, No. 187,189, granted to George L. Ward and Orianna S. Smyth, assignees of James C. Smyth, February 6, 1877, for an "improvement in machines for stitching books with staples." The circuit court, in its opinion, accompanying the record, held that the patented invention was not anticipated by that of Smyth; that claims 1 and 2 of the reissue were substantially the same as claim 4 of the original patent, when the latter claim was read in the light of the specification; and that the defendant's device infringed claims 1 and 2 of the reissue. Claim 1 of the reissue is for a combination of (1) the stationary staple-support or anvil; (2) the sliding staple-guide; and (3) the reciprocating slotted or recessed hammer or driver; the conjoined operation of the three being to insert a staple through layers of stock to be united, and to simultaneously bend over its projecting ends. Claim 2 of the reissue is for a combination, with the same three elements, of (4) the spring, D; and (5) the knob, G. Claim 4 of the original patent was for a combination of only two of these elements, namely, (1) the stationary staple-support or anvil; and (2) the reciprocating slotted or recessed hammer or driver. It left out the sliding staple-guide, and yet the claim stated that the combination of the two elements, without the stapleguide, would operate to insert the staple, and simultaneously bend over its projecting ends. It would, however, wholly fail to so operate without the use of the sliding staple-guide. The use and operation of the sliding staple-guide, its arrangement so as to slide, the use of the spring, D, to keep it in its normal elevated position, so that it will not drop prematurely, and the use of the knob, G, with which to impel the driver, are fully set forth in the original specification, and described as necessary, in combination with the stationary staple support and the reciprocating slotted or recessed hammer, to insert a staple through layers of stock, and simultaneously bend over its projecting ends; and the invention is stated, in the original specification, to consist in a hand-stamp by which metallic staples may be forced through sheets of "paper documents," and secured by clinching the legs on the reverse side. We do not find it necessary, however, to decide whether the reissue is to be considered a proper one, so far as claims 1 and 2, rightly construed, are concerned, on the view that it was an inadvertence, accident, or mistake to have left out of claim 4 of the original the elements which, by the description in the original specification, were made necessary to the performance of the operation specified in that claim. We dispose of the case on the assumption that the reissued patent is valid as respects claims 1 and 2. What is the proper construction of those claims? In claim 1, the staplesupport or anvil is described as being "stationary," and the slotted or recessed hammer or driver as being "reciprocating." In claim 2, the anvil must be regarded as a "stationary" anvil, and the hammer or driver is expressly stated to be "reciprocating." In claim 4 of the original, the staple-support or anvil is said to be "stationary," and the slotted or recessed hammer to be “reciprocating." So, in claim 1 of the original, the driver is said to be "reciprocating," and, in claim 3 of the original, the staple-support or anvil is said to be "stationary." In the description in the original specification, the anvil is described as being "a stationary anvil," and the hammer or driver as being "a reciprocating driver." In the specification of the reissue, the staplesupport is described as being "a stationary anvil," and the driver or hammer as being "a reciprocating driver." The file-wrapper and contents in the matter of the reissue are part of the evidence in the case, and throw light upon what should be the proper construction of claims 1 and 2. The application for the reissue was filed May 10, 1881. In the application as then presented 11 claims were proposed, the first and ninth of which were as follows: "(1) The staple-guide, B, driving-head, A', operating therein, recessed bending-block, E, spring, D, and knob, G, combined and operating substantially as and for the purpose set forth." "(9) The combination of the anvil or driving-head, A', with the reciprocating slotted or recessed hammer, operating to insert a staple through layers of stock to be united, and simultaneously bend over the projecting ends, substantially as and for the purpose set forth." On the twelfth of May, 1881, the applicant canceled claims 1 and 9, and converted claim 9 into a new claim 1, and claim 1 into a new claim 2, as follows: "(1) The combination of the stationary staple-support or anvil, A', with the reciprocating slotted or recessed hammer, operating to insert a staple through layers of stock to be united, and simultaneously bend over its projecting ends, substantially as and for the purpose set forth. (2) In a device for inserting metallic staples, the combination of the staple-guide, B, anvil, A', operating therein, spring, D, recess, F, and knob, G; the whole arranged to operate substantially as and for the purpose described." On the fourteenth of May, 1881, the examiner notified the applicant as follows: "Upon further consideration of this matter, in connection with amended specification, applicant is advised that the first clause of claim does not present an operative combination of mechanical devices for the purpose stated. It is obvious that, without a staple-holding device, the parts enumerated would be inoperative, in view of which a staple-holding device should be included. In reference to the second and third clauses of claim, the statement that the anvil operates in the guide-block is unwarranted, inasmuch as the anvil is stationary, and the guide-block slides up and down upon the anvil. With proper correction as to this point, the second and third clauses of claim may be allowed." On the thirty-first of May, 1881, the applicant adopted the suggestions of the examiner, and amended claim 1 by inserting after the words, "stationary staple-support or anvil, A'," the words, "and the sliding staple-guide, B," and amended claim 2 by canceling the words "operating therein;" so that claims 1 and 2 then read as follows: "(1) The combination of the stationary staple-support or anvil, A', and the sliding sta ple-guide, B, with the reciprocating slotted or recessed hammer, operating to insert a staple through layers of stock to be united, and simultaneously bend over its projecting ends, substantially as and for the purpose set forth. (2) In a device for inserting metallic staples, the combination of the staple-guide, B, anvil, A', spring, D, recess, F, and knob, G; the whole arranged to operate substantially as and for the purpose described." On the fourth of June, 1881, the examiner notified the applicant as follows: "Upon further consideration of this matter, in connection with the last amendment, it is obvious that the recess, F,' should not form an element of the mechanical combination, as such recess is a provision of the hammer' referred to in the first clause of claim, and such recess is not an operative element independent of such hammer." On the fourteenth of June, 1881, the applicant made further amendments, leaving claim 1 as last recited, and as it is found in the reissued patent, and amending claim 2, as last recited, by striking out the words "recess, F," so that it read as follows: "(2) In a device for inserting metallic staples, the combination of the staple-guide, B, anvil, A', spring, D, and knob, G; the whole arranged to operate substantially as and for the purpose described." On the fifteenth of June, 1881, the examiner notified the applicant as follows: "Upon further consideration of this matter, with a view to final action, the second clause of claim is found defective, in the absence of any mechanical combination between the knob, G,' and the other elements included in the combination. To obviate this objection a 'reciprocating driver' should be added to the combination." On the eighteenth of June, 1881, the applicant amended claim 2 by substituting for the words "and knob, G," the words "and reciprocating driver, provided with the knob, G;" so that the claim, as thus amended, read as follows, the same as claim 2 in the reissued patent: "(2) In a device for inserting metallic staples, the combination of the staple-guide, B, anvil, A', spring, D, and reciprocating driver, provided with the knob, G; the whole arranged to operate substantially as and for the purpose set forth." From these proceedings in the patent-office in regard to the allowance of claims 1 and 2 of the reissued patent, it is apparent that the applicant carefully limited himself, in those claims, to a stationary staple-support or anvil, and a reciprocating slotted or recessed hammer or driver. This result must also follow in view of the devices existing in the various prior patents introduced in evidence, showing the state of the art. The various elements entering into the combinations of claims 1 and 2 of the reissue were old, considered singly. The recessed clinching base was old; the driver in the staple case was old; the combination of those two devices in a power machine was old. The J. C. Smyth machine was a hand-lever machine, and contained in combination all the elements of the Heyl device, though differently arranged. In both the Smyth and the Heyl devices there are means of forcing out a staple from a case by a contained plunger, and bending the legs against a concave recess. In view of this Smyth machine, the plaintiffs' expert stated that the novelty of the Heyl devices consisted particularly "in the automatic adjustment to various thicknesses of paper, by means of which, without any added parts, the jaws are adapted to grip and hold all thicknesses of paper while being stapled and clinched; in their capacity for being opened to allow the eye to see the staple while being inserted by hand at the open end of the staple case, whereby a length of staple may be adapted or selected to suit the material; in the retracing spring to keep the staple-case constantly open for a new staple; in a hand-knob for driving down the plunger; and in the general construction and adaptation of all the parts to be used as a light portable desktool, low in price, simple in construction and operation, and of universal use." In prior devices, the clinching part was the base, and the inserting device was above it. This arrangement did not permit of the proper support of the staple in the tube. Heyl reversed the position of the parts, and placed the inserting device on the base, so that the staple could be inserted by hand into the open mouth of the tube, and be supported, until it should be driven, by the tube and its contained driver; this reversal of the parts necessitating the use of a spring underneath to support the tube, and keep it above the end of the driving blade, or of a spring at the side to press against the guide, and keep it in place by friction. Claims 1 and 2 of the reissued patent must therefore be limited to the specific combinations and arrangements of parts described and shown in the specification and drawings, and enumerated in those claims. The staple-support or anvil must be stationary, and the slotted or recessed hammer or driver must be reciprocating. In the defendant's device, called the "Victor Tool," the anvil or staple blade is movable, and the recessed clinching base is fixed or stationary. It is a device constructed under and in accordance with letters patent No. 218,227, granted to William J. Brown, Jr., August 5, 1879, and a second patent, No. 260,365, granted to the same person, July 4, 1882. The drawings of No. 260,365 are as follows: An expert for the plaintiffs testifies that he regards the lower part of the defendant's device, which is fixed or stationary, and contains the clinching cavity, and resists the driving and clinching blow of the hand from the opposite part of the tool, as the equivalent for the "reciprocating driver, provided with the knob, G," mentioned in claim 2 of the reissue. As the defendant's tool is constructed with the stationary recessed clinching base made to rest upon a table, and to receive the impact from above of the detached driving tool, it is a misnomer to say that such stationary base is the mechanical equivalent of the reciprocating driver, E, of the Heyl patent. The patentee having imposed words of limitation upon himself in his claims, especially when so required by the patent-office in taking out his reissue, is bound by such limitations, in subsequent suits on the reissued patent. Such have been the uniform decisions of this court in like cases. Leggett v. Avery, 101 U. S. 256; Vulcanite Co. v. Davis, 102 U. S. 222, 228; Fay v. Cordesman, 109 U. S. 408, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236; Mahn v. Harwood, 112 U. S. 354, 359, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 174; Cartridge Co. v. Cartridge Co., 112 U. S. 624, 644, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 475; Sargent v. Lock Co., 114 U. S. 63, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1021; Shepard v. Carrigan, 116 U. S. 593, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 493; White v. Dunbar, 119 U. S. 47, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 72; Sutter v. Robinson, 119 U. S. 530, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 376; Bragg v. Fitch, 121 U. S. 478, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 978; Snow v. Railway Co., 121 U. S. 617, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1343. Assuming, therefore, that claims 1 and 2 of the reissued patent are valid, they are to be construed as covering only the precise combinations enumerated in them, and described in the specification and shown in the drawings; and they do not cover the defendant's device, which has a stationary recessed clincher and a movable detached staple-inserting tool, because claims 1 and 2 of the reissued patent expressly call for a reciprocating clincher and a stationary staple-supporting anvil. Those elements, in those forms, in claims 1 and 2, were made necessary by the requirements of the patent-oflice, before it would grant the reissue; and the applicant, having voluntarily made the limitations, is bound by them. Although, in the proofs, the plaintiffs undertook to show that three other claims of the reissued patent, in addition to claims 1 and 2, were infringed by the "Victor Tool," the circuit court, in its interlocutory decree, states that it considered only claims 1 and 2; and, as the decree holds those claims alone to be valid, and to have been infringed, and the master's report and the final decree apply only to those claims, and the counsel for the plaintiffs does not contend, in his brief, that any other claim is infringed, we necessarily have confined our consideration of the case to those two claims; leaving all questions as to every other claim of the reissued patent entirely open for consideration in a case which may involve them. The decree of the circuit court is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court, with a direction to dismiss the bill of complaint. LAWSON v. FLOYD. 1. VENDOR And Vendee-QUANTITY CONVEYED-SALE IN GROSS. Certain lands were sold by written agreement, for a named price in gross, "estimated to contain 1,000 acres." Several years afterwards, in a written agreement compromising a suit about the purchase money, the land was described as to quantity by the same words. In a suit afterwards by the purchaser to recover for a deficiency in the land, it was shown by the evidence of the attorney who drew the compromise agreement that the seller refused, in the presence of the purchaser, to describe the land as 1,000 acres, and said he would not be bound by any particular number of acres. Held, where the evidence did not disclose any fraudulent assurances or circumstances calculated to deceive the purchaser, that the transactions constituted a sale in gross, and the seller was not liable for any deficiency in the quantity. 2. SAME. In such a case, acquiescence for many years is sufficient to raise the presumption that the purchaser understood the sale was in gross. 3. SAME. Where land is conveyed in exchange for other land, the liability of the vendor for a deficiency should not be enforced with the same rule of strictness as where it is a sale for money. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of West Virginia. Injunction to restrain a further sale of certain lands, and to recover for a deficiency in the amount thereof. James H. Ferguson, for appellant. C. C. Watts, for appellee. MILLER, J. On the second day of December, 1857, George R. C. Floyd, the appellee in this case, and Anthony Lawson, the appellant, entered into a written agreement for the exchange of several tracts of land which were owned by Floyd for another tract of land owned by Lawson. These tracts were in different parts of the country, and those held by Floyd were incumbered by an indebtedness amounting to over $18,000, which Lawson assumed to pay. In adjusting the exchange of these tracts, those which were to be conveyed by Floyd to Lawson were estimated at $26,000, and the property which Lawson agreed to convey to Floyd at $10,000. The balance which by these esti |