SEIBERT CYLINDER OIL CUP CO. V. PHILLIPS LUBRICATOR 00.
right to impress that appearance upon trimmings. The defenda.nts appear to have infringed upon that right. Therefore, there must be a decree for an injunction and an account, according to the prayer of the bill, with costs.
SEIBERT CYLINDER OIL CUP Co. tJ. PHILLIPS LUBRICATOR Co.
(Oircuit Court, D. Massachusetts.
February 23, 1882.)
Where an assignment is made the motive is not material. The legal title passes to the assignee, who may maintain suit for infringement without jom. ing the patentee.
J. P. Treadwell, for complainants.
T. W. Clarke, for defendants. C. J. The complainants are assignees of patent No. 138" 243, granted to John Gates for a very ingenious and useful lubricator for steam-engines. The defendants contend that one Parshall made the same invention a few weeks or a few months before Gates, though he took a patent some six years later. The evidence is not in a very satisfactory state, being a copy of that which was taken in a case of interference to which Gates was not a party. I have read it carefully, and do not find that Parshall completed and reduced to practice the invention in question before Gates made it. The idea was probably conceived by the two inventors nearly at the same time. Which was the earlier to conceive it I cannot say, but Gates fully tested and proved and adapted it to use while Parshall was trying to overcome a practical difficulty of construction which the particular form of his machine required him to overcome, and he did not succeed until years after Gates' machine had been in general use. The assignment to the plaintiffs was made an assignment, rather than a license, in order that they might sue in their own names-so the contracts recite; but there is no legal objection to this: the mati ve is not material, and, the whole legal title being in the plaintiffs, they may maintain this suit without joining the patentees. Decree for complainants.
(District Court, D. Oregon. FelJruary 28, 1882.)
TENDER Olr PILOT SERVICE.
Sumble that a tender of pilot service by a river pilot, to a vessel bound on a voyage to Portland, is not valid if made below Astoria, and before the has reached the pilot-ground of such pilot.
AMENDMENT OF STATUTE.
Semble that section 1 of the act of Decemher 20, 1865, (Sess. Laws, p. 33; Or. Laws, p. 707, § 12,) giving hll.lf pilotage for a tender of pilot service to a vessel navigating the Columbia or 'Wallamet rivers above Astoria, was passed in contravention of section 22 of article 4 of the constitution of the state, and is therefore void; but if considered valid, then section 1 of the act of October 25, 1870, (Sess. Laws, p. 51; Or. Laws, p. 710, § 27,) declaring that such vessel. when" towed by a tug or steamer," should not be required" to take a pilot or pay half pilotage," is also valid, and therefore a pilot is not entitled to recover half pilotage for a tender and refusal of piiot service.
Rufus Mallory, for libellant. William II. Effinger, for respondent.
DEADY, D. J. This suit is brought by the libellant, W. A. Betts, a river pilot, to recover the sum of $34 as half pilotage for a tender of services as such pilot to the bark Glaramara. The libel alleges that on September 18,1881, the Glaramara, a foreign ship of 800 tons burden, was in the Columbia river below Astoria, bound on a voyage to Portland, when the libellant, a duly-qualified and licensed pilot for the Columbia and Wallamet rivers above Astoria, duly offered his services to the master of said vessel to pilot her to Portland, which offered was refused, although said vessel had no river pilot on board, nor had she then been spoken by anyone; and that said vessel made the voyage to Portland and arrived here about six days thereafter. The master, Robert Morton, on behalf of the owners and claimants, George Nelson & Sons, White Haven, England, excepts to the libel because it does not appear therefrom that the libellant is entitled to have any sum as pilotage from said bark. The exception does not state specifically, as it ought, wherein the libel is defective, but upon the argument it was contended (1) that the tender of services being made below Astoria, off the libellant's pilot-ground, was therefore iJl':lufficient and of no effect; and (2) that it does not appear whether said voyage of said vessel to this port was made under sail or in tow.