upon it against infringers, or had claimed any privileges or exerciseJ1 any rights of ownership under it, a grave question would arise whether the commissioner had any power to ma.ke any change, except by surrender and reissue under the provisions of section 4910 of the Revised Statutes; but he did nothing of the sort. Under the patent law the invention and the government were parties to a contract, and when the officers of the government said to him in effect, "Accept of a monopoly of your invention for a less period than seventeen years," he had a right to reply, "No; I repudiate such a contract; give to me what the law allows." And when it is given to him, the time intervening between the issue and allowance of his patent should not be deducted from the term of the patent unless he has derived some advantage therefrom. He will only enjoy his monopoly for the 17 years. If the complainant should have a decree for infringement, damages and profits will only be allowed, on the accounting, from the date of patent. 1'he case must be heard upon the merits.
NOTE.-Since preparing the foregoing opinion my attention bas been called to the recent decision of the supreme court in Hahn v. HCt]"wood, .) Sup. Ct. Rep. 174. I have examined the case with care, and do not find anything therein which affects or controverts the reasoning and conclusions in the above case.
NEW YORK BELTING
(Uircuit Uourt, D. New Jersey. December 10,1884.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONs-INFRINGEMENT-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION-WANT OB' NOVELTY.
The novelty of the patent being in doubt, the application for 1I. preliminary injunction is refused, on condition that defendants execute 1I. bond to secure complainant on the accounting, if, upon final hearing, the patent is sustained, although the infringement is clearly shown.
On Motion for Preliminary Injunction. NIXON, J. This is an application for a preliminary injunction. I have no difficulty on the question of infringement. The exhibits of the dilfendants' manufacture, both in 1882 and 1884, show quite clearly, are infringements of the complainant's pat. to my mind, that ent. But the evidence of the defendants, and especially the affidavits of the expert, Weigand, throw some doubt on its novelty. Under the circumstances, I regard it as a proper case in which to refuse an injunction, if the defendants will execute a bond to secure the complainant on the accounting, if, upon final hearing, there shall be a decree sustaining the validity of the patent. The injunction is therefote withheld, provided that the defendants, within 10 days,
shall file a bond to the complainant corporation, in the penal sum of $10,000, conditioned for the payment of profits and damages for all subsequent infringement, if the patent shall be finally sustained; the bond to be approved by the clerk, and the defendants to file an account, under oath, every 60 days, of the rubber manufactured and soid by them, of the kind and character shown in the exhibits.
and her Cargo.1
(District COU1·t, 8. D. New Y01·k. April 17,1885 )
The steamer Alaska, of the Guion line, while on one of her regular voyages from Liverpool to New York., encountered heavy weather, and when she was some 600 miles from New York, her rudder was found to be broken and unserviceable. She accordingly lay to, while her captain exhibited signals of distress, and attempted various expedients for steering her, none of which proved available. At the end of two days the steamer Lake Winnipeg, of the Beaver line, observed the signals and came to her assistance. At an interview between the captains of the two steamers, it was agreed that the captain of the Lake Winnipeg should assist the Alflska to New York by allowing herself to be towed and to serve as a rudder for the Alaska, which was the faster steamer. Chains were passed from each stern-quarter of the Alaska to the bows of the Lake 'Vinnipeg, distant some 90 fathoms, in such a manller that the Lake Winnipeg, by altering the direction of her bow, would slue the stern of the Alaska to one side or the other, and thus keep her head pointed in the required direction. The vessels proceeded in this way to New York, with the exception of some 149 miles, which the Alaska durin!!: 18 hours of one day ran alone, keep. ing in the desired direction by means of her sails. On the fonrth day they arrived in New York; and on the day after arrival, and withont making a previous demand, the owner of the Lake Winnipeg filed a libel for salvage. The Alaska, with her cargo and freight, was valued at $1,041,542, while the Lake Winnipeg, her cargo and freight, were worth between $325,000 and $350,OOU. Held, that $26,039, or 2?J; per cent. of the value of the Alaska, and cargo was a proper salvage award. The Great Eastern, 3 Moore, P. C. (N. S.) 31. The facts of her salvage ease stated.
2. SAME-AMENDMEN'r TO LIBEL-GENERAL REPAIRS TO SALVING VESSEL-EVIDENCE.
In addition to salvage, the libelant claimed a large sum for general damage to the Lake Winnipeg. After the return of this vessel to Liverpool from New York, she was put upon a dock; and it was alleged that various injuries were then discovered. which were claimed to have been the result of her service to the Alaska. The original libel was thereupon amended on the trial to take in this claim. lIeld, that such injuries, if proved, might be rccovered; but that the evidenee was insufficient to charge the Alaska specifieally with the general repairs referred to. But in fixing a gross award full consideration was given to the Lake Winnipeg's liability to general injury in such a service, and an allowance made sufficient to cover all such damage as might naturally and reasonably be deemed incident to her peculiar service. 3.
SAME-LIABILITY OF VESSEL FOR SALVAGE DUE BY CARGO.
A ship is not liable for the proportion of salvage due from her cargo. Hespondents claimed that costs should not be allowed (1) because there was no demand before suit; and (2) because excessive bonds for 20 per cent. of the
lReported by R. D. & Edward Benedict, Esqs., of the New York bar.