stitoh is different. Unless, therefore, the Morley patent covers all forms of sewing mechanism, or all forms in combination with buttonfeeding and (doth-feeding devices, there can be no infringement. The mechanism for feeding the fabric along and spacing the buttons is substantially the same in both machines. We do not understand that Morley claims that he invented this feed mechanism, or that it is new. The complainants charge the defendant with infringement of the first, second, eighth, and thirteenth claims of the Morley patent, which are as follows:
(1) The combination in a machine for sewing shank-buttons to fabrics, of button-feeding mechanism, appliances for passing a thread through the eye of the buttons and locking the loop to the fabric, and feeding mechanism, SUbstantially as set forth. (2) The combination in a machine for sewing shank-buttons to fabrics, of a needle and operating mechanism, appliances for bringing the buttons successively to positions to permit the needle to pass through the eye of each button, and means for locking the loop of thread carried by the needle to secure the button to the fabric, SUbstantially as set forth. (8) The combination in a machine for sewing buttons to fabrics, of buttonfeeding and sewing appliances, substantially as set forth, and feeding appliances and operating mechanism, whereby the feeding devices are moved alternately different distances to alternate short button stitches, with long stitches between the buttons, as specified. (13) The combination, with button-seWing appliances, of a trough, appliances for carrying the buttons successively from the trough to the sewing devices, and mechanism for operating said appliances and sewing devices, as set forth.
Holding that the Morley patent under the law is limited substantially to the mechanism set out and described therein, and having found that the button-feeding mechanism and the sewing mechanism of the Lancaster machine are not substantially the same as, or substantially the equivalent of, those in the Morley machine, it is clear that the defendant does not infringe any of the above claims. It follows that the bill must be dismissed; and it is so ordered.
GRAIN DRILL MANUF'RS
(Circuit Court, D. Indiana.
January 24, 1885.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-GRAIN- DRILLS-CONSTRUCTION-INFRINGEMENT.
Letters patent No. 176,719, granted to J. Westcott, April 25,1876; reissued patent No. 4,091, granted to Thomas and Mast, August 2, 1870; patent No. 66.578, granted to J. P. Fulgham; and reissued patent No. 6,274, granted to E. C. Patrie, for improvements in grain-drills,-construed, and held not infringed.
In Equity. Wood cf Boyd, for complainants.
GRAIN DRILL MANUF'RS CO. V. RUDE.
Stem If Peck and Mr. L. Hill, for defendants. WOODS, J. The complainant is a corporation organized under the laws of Ohio, having its place of business at Dayton. The defendants are manufacturers, doing business at Liberty, Indiana. The original bill charged the infringement of letters patent No. 176,719, granted J. M. Westcott, April 25, 1876, for an improvement in graindrills; letters patent No. 171,907, granted Edward Kuhns, January 4, 1876 reissued September 3, 1880, No. 9,066, and reissued letters patent No. 4,091, dated August 2, 1870, granted to Thomas and Mast, the original patent being dated August 3, 1869. These three patents cover the improvements in the seeding mechanism, and in what is called the "shifting-levers" used to throw the machine out of gear. The defendants in their answer cited numerous anticipating devices, which they allege were the same in construction and mqde of operation as the patented devices of complainant. The complainant, having obtained leave of court, filed its supplemental bill alleging the infringements of letters patent No. 66,578, granted J. P. Fulgham, July 9, 1867, for an improvement in grain-drills; also, letters patent No. 100,998, granted Fulgham, Davis, and Lawrence, March 22, 1870, and reissue No. 9,341, dated March 15, 1870, to the same parties; and reissue No. 6,274, granted C. E. Patrie, February 2,1875, the original patent being dated December 29, 1868. The patent to Edward Kuhns, and the last mentioned reissue to Fulgham and the Wayne County Agricultural Company, No. 9,341, have been withdrawn by the complainant. The devices in controversy relate, first, to the method of constructing the seed-cup and seed-wheel, which is the subject-matter of the Westcott patent. The first mentioned patent, granted to Fulgham in 1867, is for a combined grass-seed and grain-drill. The first claim of reissue No. 4,091, and the first claim of the Patrie reissue, (No. 6,274,) as well as the first claim of the Fulgham patent, (No. 100,998,) relate to improvements in shifting-levers. The reissue No. 4,091 reo lates to the conductors and swinging tubes embraced in the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth claims. 'J'hese several patents, it wal:l conceded in the argument, were duly assigned to the complainant before the commencement of the suit. In view of the previous art, as shown in the record, my judgment is that the patents in question, in so far as they can be sustained at all, must be restricted to a narrow construction, practically excluding any claim of infringement on account of the use by defendants of alleged mechanical equivalents; and by this rule, as it seems to me, the bill is not sustained by the evidence, and should be dismissed. Decree accordingly.
(Cit'cuit COU1't, S. D. New York· .
BOTTOMRY BOND-MASTER APPEARING AS PART OWNER-REPAIRS AND FLIES.
The master of a vessel was also the registered owner, but another was the equitabla owner. The vessel having met with disaster, the master executed a bottomry bond to secure advances for repairs and supplies. He was in communication by mail and telegraph with the equitable owner, and the latter was ready to provide funds. Held, that the holder of the bottomry bond, with knowledge of all the facts at the time he took it, could not recover; that the equitable owner should be regarded as the legal owner of the vessel; and that the master had no authority to execute the bond, bllt that, to the extent the bond represented snpplies and repairs which the master could properly order, the holder should be subrogated to the liens therefor. A master can make a bottomry bond only abroad and from necessity. He has no power to do so if the owner can be consulted, or if he can borrow money on the credit of the owner.
SAME-AUTHORITY OF MAS'fEU.
Admiralty Appeal. For opinion of BROWN, J., in district court, Bee 15 FED. REP. 276. Theodore F. H. Meyer, for libelant and appellee. Ilobert D. Benedict, of counsel. Goodrich, Deady <f Platt, for claimant. WALLACE, J. In October, 1877, the bark Archer sailed from Bremerhaven, bound for New York, but met with disaster and put back to Bremerhaven for repairs, reaching that port November 1st. Crossman, the master of the bark, applied to Meiners, who represented the late firm of F. Roters & Co., for assistance. Raters & Co. had been the consignees of the ship on former occasions. Crossman told Meiners that he could draw on New York for the disbursements, and Meiners told him that would be satisfactory, and to go on with the repairs. Crossman had surveys made and the repairs were proceeded with, and bills were sent to Meiners, who paid them, but after having paid some of the bills Meiners insisted upon a bottomry bond as a security for the advances made and to be made. Crossman demurred, but finally consented, and the bottomry bond on which the suit is brought was executed. The bond was given to one Addicks, but, in fact, Meiners was jointly interested in it with Addicks. It was conditioned for the payment of 21,371 marks, with 20 per cent. premium. The important question in the case is whether Meiners and Addicks relied upon the authority of Crossman, as owner, in executing the bond, or whether they dealt with him as master only. Crossman had no beneficial interest in the ship. He had executed two mortgages: one covering three-fourths of the ship, which became due July 1, 1877, for $3,000, and had not been paid, and another not then due, covering the whole ship, for $7,000. These mortgages were held by the claimant, Harrison, aud exceeded in amount the value of the ship. Harrison, however, had allowed Crossman to continue in possession after default in the $3,000 mortgage under a register and ship's pa-