WlRK BOOK SE;WING MA.CHINil CO. V. STEVENSON.
WIRE BOOK SEWING MA.CHINE CO. V. STEVENSON.-
(Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania. January 30,1882.)
PATENT-INTERFEUENCE-DECIBION OF PATENT-OFFICE-EFFECT OF.
While the decision of the pa.tent-office authorities upon the question of priority between interfering patents is not conclusive upon the ccurt, it is nevertheless entitled to sufficient weight to cast the burden of proof on the party against whom it was rendered.
Letters patent No. 239,927 for improvement in book-binding, sustained.
Hearing on Pleading and Proof. Bill in equity to restrain infringement of reissued letters patent No. 8,195, for improvement in book-binding. Respondents claimed nnder letters patent No. 239,927, for improvement in book-binding. Respondents, in their answer, admitted that these two patents interfered, but claimed priority for their own, and set forth a decision of the commissioner of patents in their favor. H. T. Fenton, for complainants. Munson J; Philipp, for respondents. BUTLER D. J., (McKENNAN, C. J., concurring.) The interference charged in the bill, between the letters patent No. 8,195, under which the plaintiffs are licensees, and No. 239,927. owned by the defendant, is admitted in the answer. The first question open for consideration therefore is,-which of the respective patentees is entitled to the claim of priority of invention, as against the other. This having been submitted to the authorities of the patent-office, was there decided in favor of the defendant. While this decision is not conclusive here, (Machine Co. v. Crane, 6 O. G. 801,) it is nevertheless entitled to sufficient weight to cast the burden of proof on the plaintiff. The only evidence before us is that which the department heard j and an examinu.tion of this has served to strengthen the presumption stated. The second and only other question raised is, are the defendant's letters void for want of novelty? Here again the defendant starts with a presumption in his favor, arising out of his patent. A careful examination of the testimony has revealed nothing sufficient, ill our judgment, to overcome this presumption. A decree must therefore be entered for the defendant·
· Reported by I<'rank P. Prichard, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.
(District Oourt, S. D. New York.
February 21, 1882.)
VOI,IJTSTON-STEAM-TUG AT REST NOT TO EMBARRASS ApPROACHING STEAMER.
A steam-tug lying at rest in a stream, after being' signaled by unother ap· proaching steamer, indicating on which side the latter proposes to pass her, has no right to embarrass the latter's course by giving contrary whistles and starting ahead across the other's bows; and if, in consequence of doing so, a collision ensue, the tug must be held in fault.
SAME-CONTRARY SIGNALS-CROSSING COUl,SES-FAULT NOT STOPPING IN TIME.
Where, in such a case, it was perceived from the steamer that the tug waE moving forward across the steamer's proposed course, under contrary signals, involving obvious risk of collision if the tug's course was continued, and the steamer kept on until very ncar the tug before stopping and backing, und a collision ensued, held, that the steamer was also in fault.
MARITIME LIEN-EFFECT OF DEI,AY IN ENFORCING.
A maritime lien will not be enforced as against bona .tide reasonable opportunity has been afforded and no libel filed.
4. SAME-LIEN LOST BY LACHES-RIGHTS OF BONA
The colliding steamer in this case baving been sold to I)()na fide purchasers about two years after the collision, who made careful inlluiries to ascertain all outstanding claims, and who also kept on deposit a large sum from the purchase price for four months afterwards, to meet any latent claims, and the purchase price having thereafter been paid in full without knowledge of the present claim, and the libel not being filed until more than two years afterwards, nearly four years and a half after the coUisi.on, and the steamer having been at all times, except in the winter months, constantly plying between this port and Fall Hiver, held, that thc lien was lost, and the libel should be dismissed. 5. SALE OF VESSEL-COVENANTS OF W ARltANTY AGAINST LIENS. Covenants of warranty, in the bill of sale, against liens or encumbrances, are immaterial as respects the discharge from liability of a bonafide purch"ser.
In Admiralty. Beebe, Wilcox tt Hobbs, for libellants. Prichard, Choate tt Smith, and Wm. G. Choate, for claimants. BROWN, D. J. This libel WitS filed to recover for damages for injuries to the steam-tug Relief, inflicted by the steamer Bristol in a collision on the East river, near the I!'ulton ferry, on the morning of July 5, 1872, under the following circumstances:
The Relief, about 7 o'clock in the morning of that day, left pier 20 on the East river, New York, and steamed across the river towards the Brooklyn shore, designing to take in tow to Harlem an ice-barge which the steam-tug Birbeck was to cast loose, and put in charge of the Relief. The Birbeck came up the river on the New York side and let go the barge not far from the middle of the stream, and the Relief was lying at rest, waiting for the llUl'ge