HAYES V; BOOKEL.
place. It does so in substantially the same manner referred to as old in the original specification. The wings No.6 are no infringement of claim 1. They have but one shoulder, and could not be used in the Carr burr. The wings No.5 made and sold by the defendant, though like Carr's wing, were not sold to be used in a burr made like Carr's. Carr's burr, it is shown, went out of use and was Buperseded by forms not covered by the patent. The burrs in which such wings were to be used were not covered by the patent, because they did not have a hub of two slotted wings. The wing per 86 is useless, and it was not sold to be used, nor was it used, in any infringing structure. Hence, the patent was not infringed by making or selling it. Claim 1 must be limited to a wing to be used in a hollow-slotted hub. Otherwise it is not claim to any mechanism or to any patentable structure, but only to a piece of metal of a certain shape, incapable of use till corporated in another structure. The article is not Carr's knittingburr blade unless it is to be used in the manner pointed out in the patent. The bill must be dismissed, with costs.
(Oircuit Oourt, S. D. New York. February 27,
LETTEllS PATENT-VALIDITY OF-SKYLIGHTS.
Reissues Nos. 8,597, 8,674, 8,675, and 8,688, granted to George Hayes for improvements in skylights, held, to be good and valid, and not void for want of, novelty or failure to show patentable combinations.
J. H. Whitelegge, for plaintiff. J. H. Ketchen, for defendant.
BLATCHFORD, C. J. This suit is brought on four patents, reissues Nos. 8,597, 8,674, 8,675, and 8,688, all granted to the plaintiff. The skylights which the plaintiff saw being made at the defendant's shop in tb.e fall of 1879, were, he says, in all respects similar in construction aud operation to the skylight he saw on the Garner building. This was after. the reissl}es were granted, and before the suit was brought. The plaintiff describes the Garner structure. That
-Reported by S. Nelson Wbite, Esq., of the New York bar.
structure contains what is covered by claims 1 and 2 of No. 8,597; by claims 8, 12, and 13 of No. 8,674; by claim 7 of No. 8,675; and by claims 1 and 2 of No. 8,688. The above are all the claims alleged in this case to have been infringed, except claim 4 of Ko. 8,688. That claim is found in the Pacific Bank structure. That was put on by the defendant in February, 1880, which was after the reissue and before the bill was filed. Such is the evidence. If those structures were not put on by the defendant, or were put on by him before the reissues,' it was easy for him to have testified to that effect. It satisfactorily appears that all of the above-named claims have been infringed by the defendant. The defendant adduces against claims 1 and 2 of No. 8,597 the patents to Shaw, Illingworth, Tomlinson, and Henricksen; against claims 8, 12, and 23 of No. 8,674, the patents to Richards, Dench, Weston, Harrison, and Curtis, Flinn, and Paxton; against claim 7 of No, 8,675, the patents to Cornell and Paxton; and against claims 1, 2, and 4 of No. 8,688, the patents to Weston, Dench, and Perks. The above-named are the patents urged in the brief of the counsel for the defendant. I have examined the testimony in regard to them particularly. I have also read all the testimony. My conclusion is that none of the above claims are shown to be void for want of novelty. I have also considered, in regard to No. 8,597, the objections as to claims 1 and 2, that there was not a sufficiency of invention, and that the description is too vague, and that the combinations are not patentable combinations, but only aggregations; in regard to No. 8,674, the objections as to claims 8, 12, and 13, that there was not a sufficiency of invention, and as to claims 12 and 13, that they show only a duplication of parts; in regard to No. 8,675, the objection as to claim 7, that there is not a sufficiency of invention; and in regard to No. 8,688, the objections as to claims 1 and 2, that there is not a sufficiency of invention, and as to claim 4, that there is not a patentable combination. The objections are none of them regarded as tenable. The infringing devices of the defendant which I have con· sidered are those represented at the right hand of plaintiff's Exhibit No.5, opposite claims 1 and 2 of No. 8,597; claims 8, 12, and 13 of No. 8,674; claim 7 of No. 8,675; and claims 1,2, and 4 of No. 8,688. Those and all substantially like them must be regarded as infringing. The usual decree will be entered for the plaintiff, with 003tS.
THE CITll: OF HARTFORD.
THE CITY OF HARTFORD.
lDi811'ict Court, 8. D. New York.
March Hi, 1882 ,
Courts of admiralty, by virtue of their general powers in regulating their practice for" the due administration of justice," as well as under the forty-sixth supreme court rule in admiralty, have power to require the security upon any bond or stipulation given as a substitute for property arrested in rem to IJe kept good, and in case of the insolvency of either surety to require additional securit.y t.o be filed, and in default thereof that the defence be stricken out. Cases of this kiond not provided for by the general rule may be met by order in the cause.
SAME-APPLICATION OF PRE-EXISTING RULES.
The pre-existing rules in regard to sureties in stipulations should be applied by analogy to similar cases arising upon bonds given under the act of 1847.
:3. SAME-DEATH OF SURETy-ADDITIONAL SURETY REQUIRED.
One of two sureties in such a bond given for the release of a vessel having died insolvent, and the claimant being a foreign corporation, and made all assignment for the benefit of its creditorR, held, that an additional surety must be given in place of thesuretv deceased, according to the rules applicable to stipulatione.
Motion for Further Security. Edward D. McCarthy, for libellants. Hltntley &: Bower, for claimant. BROWN, D. J. The libel in this case was filed on the twenty-second day of March, 1881, to recover $1,012.15 damages for injuries by collision. The Hartford & New York Steam-boat Company appeared as claimant, and gave a bond under the act of 1847 for the release of the vessel arrested, with two sureties, who were approved upon justification. The claimant afterwards filed an answer, and the cause is still pending in this court. Upon an affidawt showing that one of the sureties has died insolvent, that the claimant is a foreign corporation, and has made an assignment of all its property and is insolvent, the libellants move for an order that the claimant file additional security, and that the other surety be required to appear and be examined touching his sufficiency. In reply, an affidavit is submitted on the part of the claimant, asserting on information and belief that the claimant's assets are sufficient to pay their creditors and leave a large surplus, and that the living surety is a person of large means and of ample responsibility; and an affidavit has also been submitted by the surviving surety to the effect that his oircumstances are unchanged since his approval on the bond. As the affidavit does not allege any change in the circumstances of