.BROWN MANUF'G CO.
(Oircuit Court, N. D. llUMi,.
PATENTB FOR INVENTIONB-PATEN'f MENT.
No. 190,816-CLAIM8 1 .AND
The defendant's cultivator compared with patent No. 190,816, 8uBtained in BrO'tlJn Manuf'g Co. V. Deere, ante, 709, and held, that the first and second claims thereof are infringed by defendant.
BLODGETT, J.. In this suit the defebdant was charged with the infringement ofletters patent No. 190,816, dated May 15,1877, issued to WilliamP.'Brown, for an improvement in couplings for cultivators. I have already discussed, in the case of the Same Complainant against Deere &; 00., ante, 709, all the questions made in this case except that of infringement. In this case the defendant is charged with infringing the first and second claims of this patent, which are as follows:
"(1) The pipe-box: provided with a projection adapted to co-operate with a spring. weight, or the draught, to rock the said pipe-box against or with the weight of the rear cultivators or plows, SUbstantially as and for the purpose described. (2) The combination, with the crank-axle and the gangs or plows, of the pipe-box, having arm, M, the spring, N, attached to the main frame, the head, I, and the stirrup, G, or its ·equivalent, having brackets, H, and pivot-bolt, b, and fastened to the pipe-box, substantially as and for the purpose described. II . , . ,
I find in the defendant's cultivator a pipe-box substantially the in its function and operation as that provided in complainant's patent, to whiQh I also find a plow attached by means of a. bracket cast upon and.as a part of the pipe-box; and this bracket seems to me in every particular to take the place and be the equivalent of the stirrup, G, shown in the complainant's patent. It performs the function in the mechanism, and does in every particular the same work as the complainant's stirrup. The plow has, by means of the pipe-box, and the bracket or stirrup and coupling-pin, the same side and verticallll::).otion which are given in the complainant's patent, and .which are the,.purpose and object of this complainant's device. I also find a projection, not cast upon and made an integral of the pipe-box, as is complainant's projection, M, but a vertical projection which is rigidly attached to the end of the pipe-box, and performs the same function, and operates in the same manner and for the same purpose, in connection with a spring, as the arm or projection attached to the complainant's pipe-box. The mere fact that this projection is constructed separately from the pipe-box and then rigidly attached thereto, does not, it seems to me, in any degree justify the defendant in the use of this device. It seems to me a clear
STEPHElNSON V. THE FRANOIS.
and palpable infringement of that portion of the complainant's patent which provides for an auxiliary force with whieh to aid in lifting the rear of the plows out of the ground. The curved levar of the defendant is in all its essential functions but the projection, M, of the complainant's patent, and I cannot Bee that it performs any other or different function in the defendant's organization from what would be performed by the complainant's arm, M, in the same organization. There will, therefore, be a finding that the defendants infringe the first and second claims of the plaintiff's patent, ands. deoree for an accounting and injunction.
(District Oourt, 8. D. New York. September 16,1884.)
M.UtITIME LIEN-SUPPLIES-CHARTER-PART OWNERS IN DIFFERENT STATES.
Where a ship is run by charterers, being owners pro 'tae flice, their residence only is ,regarded in determining the ship's "home port," and the presumptions of personal credit in regard to supplies furnished.
2. SAME-SUPPLIES-WHERE FURNISHED.
If there are several equal co-owners, general or special, resident in different states, no lien will arise for supplies furnished in the state of the known residence of either.
S. SAME-PERSONAl, CREDIT-IMPLIED LmN.
A known owner obtaining supplies on his personal order in a foreign port, not being master, deals presumptively on his personal credit only, and no lien will be implied unless the libelant satisfies the court, from the negotiations or the circumstances, that there was a common understanding or intention to bind the ship.
8AME-PUESUMPTION-CHARGE ON LmELANTs' BOOKS.
This presumption is stronger in the case of a c4arterer known to be bound to paJ' for the supplies in person, and not to the ship; and where material-men, knowing the above facts, furnlshtld supplies to such a charterer on bis own application, who was known to them for 25 years previous, but having no definite credit with them, and no reference was made to the ship as a source of credit, and the master gave notice that the ship was not to be bound, and the ship was not in any port of distress, and the libelants being agents to collect the freights, and other circumstances negativing a reliance on the ship held, that supplies to a small amount, for the vessel's ordinary trips, at th; commencement of season's business, were furnished on the charterer's credit only, notWithstanding a charge on the libelants' books to the vessel and owners, and without reference to the quest.ioR of the power of a charterer to bind the ship for supplies, contrary to the stipulations of the charter.
SAME-KNOWLEDGE OF OBLIGATION OF CHAUTERERS-NoTICE.
SAME-NOTICE TO MASTER-StmSEQUENT SUPPLIES;
Notice by the master is one of the terms oll,which subseqnent supplies must be held furnished. .- .