(Oircuit Oourt, D.
Februa1'1 8, 1883.)
PATENT!! FOR INVENTIONB-SUBSTITUTION.
The substitution of a new ingredient in a combination of old ingredient. II not an infringement. Babcock v. Judd, 1 FED. REp. 408, followed.
Wm. Edgar Simonds, for plaintiffs. Ohas. E. Mitchell, for defendants. SHIPMAN, J. This bill in equity is founded npon the, alleged infringement by the defendants of Franklin Babcock's reissued patent No. 9,301, dated July 20, 1880, for an improved window-spring catch. The original patent was dated September 29, 1868. A suit upon the original patent between the same parties for the same al. leged infringement was tried before me, and was decided in February, 1880. I held that the original patent was not infringed. Babcock v. Judd, 1 FED. REP. 408. Before & decree in conformity with the opinion was entered in that case the patent was surrendered and the present reissue was obtained. The pending suit was thereupon dismissed by reason of the surrendry of the patent. It is admitted that the first and second claims of the reissue are invalid under the recent decisions of the supreme court. It is said by the plaintiff that the third claim is simply a restatement, and not an enlargement, of the single claim of the original patent. The third claim is:
.. In combination, this exteriorly-threaded case, the bolt provided with a locking shoulder and pressure pad, the spring and the stem supporting the spring, all substantially as shown and described."
Admitting that the plaintiffs' construction of this claim is correct, there is no infringement, for the reasons stated in the former caseBabcock v. Judd, supra. The new exhibits which the plaintiffs introduced in evidence in this case have no substantial vaJ.ue upon the point which is in controversy. Let the bill be dismissed.
(District Vourt. B. D.; NetD
Em> OlJ' PmR-l'BoPBLLER. Where a canal-boat, sound and strong, was lying at the end of a pier, and a propeller, in attempting to get into the adjoining slip, brought up against the canal-boat and injured her, held, that if it was necessary for the propeller to come up along-side and against the canal-boat, it was her duty to do 80 in an easy manner, and the propeller must be held liable for the damage resulting from the blow.
In Admiralty. W. W. Goodtrich,tor . , Beebe,'WilCd:t tt Hobbs, for claimant. . " This actio,ll' ilil',t<) the 080nal-boat S. Gray,while lying at the ettd of pier46iJ;l the North river, occasioned by a. collision between the the propeller time of theJoollision propeller Harry.lJ.aving a baz:ge laden. with wa,s enqea;vorii!g to get into the slip between pier 46 and pier 45. Thelibelant·sboat lay moored at the end of the pier. her bow .dbwnstream b.eyo'nd the pier.,,' 'tide was flood. The adopted by the propeller was, to corne head. to the tide off the end of pier 46, andgthen . move' into the 'slip. In 'accomplishing this maneuver she up against the canal-boat, that Was lying the e,nd of pier 4Er, causing'the' damage sued for. . .. ' .' . The proofs 'show that canal-boa.t was asoundboa.t. able to withstand aU ordina-ry contact with other vessels at the::piers, and th;at was moored in a place where, had also show that the blow which 'she rethe right to ceivedfrom theiR-arry wall a .severe,one.1f, as, contended in behalf of the propeller, it was necessary for thepropeUer; under the circumup >agairist' thecanal.boat, it was. stances, to nevertheless, ,the duty of the ,propeller to. do so .in an easy manner, Without dangerous force. This duty w&snot, discharged. The effect of the blow ah6ws that the blow was severe. I have no doubt that the injury to the libelant's boat resulted from a want of dUEl care on the part of the Harry. "" The case differs from the caSe.of The Charles R. Stone,. 9 Ben. 182. relied on by the claimant. In ,that calle the tug siDJ,ply sagged, mby
'-Reported by R. D. & Wyl1ys Benedict