(OireuU Oourt, D. Ma..aM'UIIsttl.
February 2, 1883.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTION!l-VALIDJTY OF REI88Ul>
A reissue' may be good, a8 .t6 some of its claims and bad as, to othera. A patentee may, rely on the infringement of the valid claim.
W. A. Macleod, for defendant. T. L. Wakefield, for complainants. LOWELL, J. A rehearing is asked for by the defendant, for tho reason that since the interlocutory decree was entered, (Oote v. Moffitt, 8 FED. REP. 152,) and since the accounting was begun' before the master, the decisions of the supreme court(Miller v. Bra" 00. 104 U. S. 350; Jame8 v. Campbell, Id. 356) haye laid down' a rule for ascertaining the 'validity of reissues which was not understood before, and one which: would render reissue in this case void. The plaintiffs deny that the reissue is void, and objeot that this petition should have been filed before theylla<} incurred sotnuch expense before the master. If I have a discretion in the matter, arisiJ?g out of the delity, I do not exercise it, because I think the case'of GouT,d 'v. Spicer '[reported ante] decides the point. It was there held that a reissue , might be good as to some of its claims, and bad to others; and that if a valid c,laitn in the origin'al patent in the reissue and was infringed, the patentee might rely upon that: infringement and prevail, though some other claims were too broad. The single olaim \ orCote's original patent is repeated, in su1)stanoe, in the telssue, and will support the plaintiff's 'decree. Petition denied.
:(JO'Urt, N. D. IUinou" Jauuary6, 1888.)
COLLISION-PROPELLER ENTERING HA'l'tBOR.
;''Wherei etitering a harbor. on a dark night at, a high rate of speed, she was held'liabie for a collision wi1ih'a scliooner, leaving such harbor, notwithstanding the evidence was conflicting as to the position of the lights of the schooner, or the period at which a torch-light had been flashed On the schooner, and although the propeller mar: ,havchad a lookout.
2. SAME-FAULT-HIGH RATE OF
In sucha caseit is fault in a ntJt to slacken
when entering a harbor on a dark night. the necessar.l" precaution's to avoid acollision.
,! "-' ; :.- :
H., W. MiUf?1r, for
,filed ;by the owqer of, the schooner a collision of the propeller Blldger Stata i with the, (lll', October 9, 1877. A ;iq'F', to start out on her to after oQt a p.jstance from harqof,t her go, apd the to sail, aI;ld whiJ,e p-oing so, the hour being f} aome distance' off, making for C,hiqago. I' is p.ifference of.,opinion, amollg as to pxecise!coll.!'se of the, tw.o vessels, but itseems sufficient;t9 say t,he 8chooner-was about N. byW., 'apd, S. l-&I"J S. W. The from th.eharbar, probably less than a mile from the pier. The propeller struck the schooner a glancing blow on the starboard side. The night was not very dark, and a light properly displayed on a vessel could be seen at a distance of several miles. The rule of law in a case like this is well settled. It was the duty of the propeller to avoid the schooner, and done so, and the collision having taken place, it is incumbent on the propeller to establish by competent evidence that the collision was caused, in whole or in part, by some fault on the part of the schooner. It is claimed by the defendant that the schooner was in fault in three particulars: that the schooner did not, just before the time of the collision, show a starboard or green light, as the law requires; that she had no sufficient lookout; and that she was not properly