ratchets and pawls and the revolving axle, in combination with the lifting wheel adapted for horse-rake purposes, and with the rake head, rake teeth and other auxiliaries of the horse-rake, in combination with these elements of the machine, and that that combination was not contained in any prior machine. I think, also, that the prima facie proof, which the issuing of the patent itself affords, is to the point that the instrument thus made by that combination is one of much more than patentable utility. I think that there is much more than the element of mere patentable invention in it. I am inclined to think, from the testimony, that the combination is not only new, but that the result is a machine of very considerable value in the useful arts, that relate to agriculture. I therefore feel constrained to find in favor of the complainants. I may also state, and I could not give such an opinion without coming to the further conclusion that I am about to announce, .that under the circumstances of the case, and upon the facts disclosed by the record, the patent as re-issued is not, in fact, broader than is warranted by the prior patent of 1867. Upon both grounds my judgment is with the complainants, and there being no serious controversy as to the infringement by the defendant, a decree will be made accordingly.
WmTE v. NOYES and others.
(Circutt Oourt, 8. D. New York.
PATENT OF PATENT
May 15, 1880.)
No. 221,721 SUSTAINED, No. 220,126.
AND HELD NOT TO INFRINGE THE CLAIM
Wyllys Hodges, for plaintiff. Thomas H. Dodge, for defendants. BLATCHFORD, C. J. I think it is quite plain that the structhe ture described in patent No. 221,721 does not
TONS OF FISH SCBAP.
claim of patent No. 220,126. The mode of operation of the combination of parts found in No. 221,721 is entirely different from the mode of operation of the combination of parts claimed in No. 220,126, and it required invention to pass from the latter to the former. If No. 221,721 had been earlier patent, the structure in No. 220,126 would not in· fringe it. The converse of this is equally true. The motion for a. preliminary injunction is denied.
BURDGB vS. Two HUNDRED AND TWENTY TONS OF FISH SCRAP.
(Di8trict Oowrt, D. Maryland.
LoADING CARGO-DUTY OF MASTER.- It
May 26, 18BO.)
is the duty of a master, when fully cognizant of the facts, to determine when the vessel has taken as much cargo at a wharf as is prudent, in view of the depth of the water, although the cargo is 1>eing loaded by the shippers.
Brown et Smith, for libellant. Marshall et Fisher, for respondents. MORRIS, D. J. The respondents in this case chartered the
schooner Martha Welsh for a voyage from Stearn's Works, Guilford, Connecticut, to Baltimore, Maryland, and they en. gaged to provide and furnish to the vessel at Guilford 200 tons of dried fish scrap, in bulk-cargo to be put in vessel's hold by shippers, but trimmed, stowed and discharged by vessel's dispatch in loading and discharging. The charter-party contains this stipulation: "Charterers guaranty ten feet of
water at wharf, at Guilford, and agree to lighter balance oj cargo at their expense." I am satisfied from the testimony that
before the master of the vessel got to the wharf at Guilford he was warned that there was not ten feet of water there, and that shortly after getting to Stearns' wharf he well knew, both from information given him by others and from his own soundings, that hardly eight feet could be expected at. high tide. Notwithstanding that knowledge, he allowed the parties at the wharf to· continue putting cargo on board until the ves-