DEERING V. WINONA HARVESTER WORKS
and others. 1
(Oircuit Oourt, D. Minnesota.
June Term, 1885.)
PATENTS FOR OF CONSOLIDATION OF SUI1'S-EX'l'ENDD1G TBlE TO ANSWER.
D. filed a bill on May 25, L885,II11eging an infringement of two of the patents issued for improvements in grain-binders, both relating to the corel-binding meclJlluism j lind on .J 1,1885, he filed anothllr bill against the same defendants for an infringement of five relating to grain-binding and harvesting machines,-all of the devicesaJleged to be infringed being used in one machine. Defendant on June 18, 1885, moved to consolidate the two suits, and that the time (0 answer both bills be e2(tenqed to the first rUle-day in September. Held, that the motion should be granted.
Banning cf; Banning, for complainant. Dyrellforth d Dyrelljilrth, for defendants.
NELSON, J. The defendants are engaged in manufacturing and selling grain harvesters and binders,both operated conjointly as one machine. The complainant files his bill May 25, 1885, alleging all infringement of two of his patents issued for improvements in grain binqers, both relating to the cord-holding mechanism; and on J Ulle 10, 1885, he files another bill against the same defendants for an illfringement of five patents, relating to grain-binding and harvesting machines. All of the mechanical devices which are alleged to be infringed, are used in one machine. On June 18, 1885, a motion is made by defendant's solicitors that the two suits be consolidated, and, for the purposes of answer, proofs, and hearing, be treated as one and the same suit; also that the time to answer both bills of complaint be extended to the first rule-day in September. '1'he motion is opposed by the complainant's solicitors on the ground (1) that the several alleged infringements of seven different patents could not be joined in the same bill, as it would be on demurrer bad for multifariousneS8; (2) that the voluminous testimony in the consolidated cases would tend to confusion on the hearing, and seriously inconvenience the court. The charge of multifariousness against a bill counting upon infringements of the seven separate patents embraced' in the two bills, would not .be sllstained. The principles announced ill Nourse v. Allen, 3 Fisher, Pat. Cas. 63, and followed in Gillespie v. CUl/linings,3 Sawy. 260, and other cases, permits such joining of separate and distinct causes of action. The defendants are engaged in the manufacture of harvesting and binding machines, containing mechanism infringing all the patenb, if the allegations of the complainant in both bills are trlle. I think the convenience o! the court will be served if the two suits proceed as one, and certainly the labor of the solicitors of both parties will be lightened .
. Reported by HoLcrts0ll !Iowanl, Esq., of thc Sl. Pau]
OONOVER V. 'rHE CITY OF CHESTER.
The delay asked for by defendants is reasonahle, and cannot prejndice the complainant. The motion to consolidate, and for time to answer, is granted; and it is so ordered.
CONOVER V. THE CITY OF UHESTER.
(Di8trict (Jourt, S. D. New York. May 5, 1885.)
COLLISION-RuNNING NEAR PIERS.
Ferry-boats passing up and down the East river, and having no call to go in the immediate vicinity of piers 3 to 7, appropriated by law to the special uses of canal-hoats, will he held in fault for a collision resulting from attempting to pass between tugs lying off those docks waiting for canal-boats, within 200 or 300 feet of the shore. A signal of two whistles given by a ferry-boat to indicate that she would pass inside, but not assented to, does not relieve her from fault.
2. SA.ME-DISSENTING SIGNALS.
A tug in waiting as above, not over 200 or 300 feet from shore, hearing a signal of two whistles, replied with one, and proceeded towards the shore, but, observing that the ferry-hoat continued her course inside, backed. Held, that the tug was not in fault, and that the ferry-boat was solely responsible for the collision that ensued.
In Admiralty. Edward D. McCa1·thy, for libelants. Beebe &; Wilcox; for claimants. BROWN, J. At about half past 7 in the evening of January 3,1884, the tug-hoat Skeer, belonging to the libelant Conover, having the libelant Heckman's canal.barge Hammill lashed to her starboard side, was waiting near pier 7, East river, in the flood-tide, for the the slip below, to get out of the tug·boat Amboy, which lay way, so that she might pick up another canal· boat in the slip on the southerly side of pier 7. While thus waiting, and, as I find, sub· stantially at rest, the Oity of Ohester, an Annex ferry-boat running from Jersey Oity to the bl'idge pier at Brooklyn, rounded the Battery, and, seeing the Skeel' ahead, undertook to pass between her and the New York shore. In doing so, she struck the Skeel' a violent blow on her port side, and also injured the Hammill by the blow communicated to her. The Oity of Ohester must be held solely answerable for this collision. The docks near which the Skeer was lying are devoted specially by statute to the use of canal.boats, where tugs are in the habit of picking up and landing such boats, and of making up their tows. The pilot of the Oity ofOhester was familiar with these facts. Tugs lying in this vicinity, whether their colored lights are seen or not,