FEDERAL REPORTER. CBANDALL and others v. DARE.
(,Cw-cull Court, S. D. New York. November 5,1881.)
REISSUlII-IMP:ROVElllENT IN CHILDREN'S OARRIAGES.
Where the claims in controversy had been adjudicated upon in It former suit and were held in such suit to have been anticipated, the bill for an infringement will be dismissed.
P. Van Antwerp, for plaintiffs. A. v. Briesen, for defendant. BLATCHFORD, C. J. This suit is brought on reissued letters patent No. 4,223, granted to William E. Crandall, January 3, 1871, for an "improvement in children's carriages," the original patent, No 100,121, having been granted to him, as inventor, February' 22, 1870, and reissued to him, No. 3,972, May 17, 1870. Claims I, 2, 3, and, 5 of the reissue, which, are the claims involved in this suit, were adjudicated upon by this court in Crandall v. Richardson, 8 FED. REP. 808, and those claims were held to have been anticipated. By a stipUlation between the parties to this suit the testimony on file in Orandall v. Richardson is to be considered by this court in the determination of this suit. There is other testimony in this suit. But I s:Je no ground for changing the conclusion arrived at in the former '!uit, and the bill must be dismissed, with costs.
BATE REFRIGERATING Co. v. EASTMAN.
(Oircuit Court, S. D. New York.
September li, 1881.)
Where there is so much doubt on the question of infringement as to require that the new apparatus be embraced in a new suit, the motion for an attachment will be denied.
BLATOHFORD, C. J. In view of the state of the art as shown in the prior patents, referred to on the hearing of the motion for injunction, and of the construction which Judge Nixon found to be the proper one on which to sustain the patent as against those prior patents, and of the grounds on which the motion for iujunction was granted, and of the fact that no process is claimed in the patent, but the claims are for apparatus having a specific mode of operation, and of the fact that the defendant uses new air all the time, although getting the
THE LlZZmW· VIRDEN.
benefit of cooling the new air by the cold of the old air, I think there is so much doubt on the question of infringement as to require that the new apparatus be embraced in a new suit, and that the motion for attachment be denied.
TIBBALS 'V. DAB1'.
(Gitrcuit (Jourt, S. D. NtM York. December. 6,1880.)..
Where one claim of a patent was infri nged and the. usual decree will be entered.
were not, the
. THE Llzzm W. VIRDEN.
(Oircuit (Jourt, E. D. New York. September,1881.)
1. CBARTER-PARTy-PERILS OF THE SE,\9.
Ship-owners, not the charterers, take the risk of the condition of the vessel. the risk of there not 'being heat and steam, and the risk of so cleansing the vessel as to take the cargo safe from damage by petroleum, notwithstanding heat and steam.
2. SAllE-DAMAGE FROM PETR01JUJM. In the absence of a clause in the charter-party providing for the cleansing of the vessel in a specified manner, or for taking only specified cargo, or for· freeing the vessel from petroleum· damage to specified cargo,' damage. from petroleum occasioned by leakage, di1fusion,or impregnation is not a peril of the sea. .
Motion for reargument. F. A. Wilcox, for libellants. R. D. Benedict, for claimants.