STEAM-GAUGE & LANTERN CO. and others
(Circuit Court, N.
MoRoBERTS and others.-
PATENTS FOR INvENTIONS-PLEADINGS.
Exceptions for impertinence and immateriality were tiled to that part of a bill which described prior patents to the same inventor, and involving the the same principle as one of the patents in suit. Held, that it was entirely proper, and under the circumstances of the case almost necessary, to show the relation which the patent in suit bore to the prior patents. The history of the invention is a part of the controversy in a patent case. The state of the art, and the steps which have been taken, either by the inventor of the patent in question or byother inventors, are a necessary part of / the testimony, and proper matters of averment in the bill.
SAME-RECITAL OF PRIOR LITIGATION.
It is proper to recite in a bill for infringement of a patent prior litigation over the same patent. In the Seventh circuit, by a rule of comity, the courts, in patent cases, endeavor to observe and follow the decisions which have been made in reference to the same patents, and even upon kindred questions, in other circuits.
4. SAME-COMITY-RULE OF, IN SEVENTH CIRCUIT.
In Equity. John G. Chandler and Pattl Bakewell, for defendants. Coburn a: Thacher, for complainants. BLODGETT, J. Nine exceptions are filed to the bill by the St. Louis Railway Supplies Manufacturing Company, one of the defendants in this case. 'rhe first, second, third, fourth, and tenth are applicable to so much of the bill as sets out the successive steps of John H. Irwin, the inventor of what is known as the Lantern," or a lantern for burning kerosene by supplying an irreversible current of air to the burner. By those five exceptions the defendantB insist that all matter pertaining to the history of the Irwin invQntions is immaterial and impertinent for the purposes of this case. The suit involves one of the patents of Irwin, and the pleader,.in stating the case in the bill, describes quite a number of patents which were issued from time to time to Irwin for lamps and lanterns involving the principle of the patent in question. It seems to me that the history of the invention is not only entirely proper under the circumstances of this case, but that it is almost a necessary part of the complainants' bill, to show the relation which the patent in question bears to other patents which Irwin had obtained upon kindred devices. I do not, therefore, think that those objections are well taken. The history of an invention is always a part of the controversy in the case. The state of the art, the steps which have been taken, either by the inventor of the patent in question or by other inventors, is always a necessary part of the testimony in the case, and it seems to me a proper matter of averment in this bill.
by Charles C. Linthicum, Esq., of the Chicago bar.
The remainder of the exceptions refer to the allegations in the bill as to the litigation which has been had over this patent, some suits having been commenced in regard to other patents involving the principle of the irreversible current, and other cases having been upon the patent directly in question. It seems to me very proper for the complainant to set out this feature of his case, because in this circuit we are, by a rule of comity, endeavoring to observe and follow the decisions which have been made in reference to the same patent, or even upon kindred questions, in other circuits. None of the objections are well taken, and all of them are overruled.
THE GARDEN CITY.t
In re Petition of EAST RIVER FERRY Co.
(DiaUrWt OQurt, S. D. NCUI York.
SHIPPING - LIMITATION OF LIABILITY - VALID UNDER POWER OIl' CONGREsS OVER ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME CAUSES-CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
The act of March 3, 1851, (sections 4282--4289,) in limitation of liabilIty, so far as applicable to marine torts or to other subjects of maritime jurisdiction, is within the constitutioual power of congress, Independent of its relation to foreign or interstate commerce. Such power is co-extensive with the tp'ant of the judicial power "to all cases of admiralty and maritime JurisdictIon," and of all necessary legislative power in regulating the remedies under that jurisdiction; following The Seawanhaka, 5 Fed. Rep. 599.
Horses and trucks, which are taken aboard a ferry-boat by their drivers, who are passengers. and remain in their charge upon the trip, are not "merchandise," within the meaning of section 4282, Rev. St.
ST.-"MERCHANDIIilE"-HoRSES AND TRUCKS.
SAME-SECTION 4288-JURISDICTION-PRACTICE-AMOUNT 01' CLAIMS.
In proceedings to limit ship-owners' liability, under section 4283, it is not necessary to aver in the petition, or to prove, that the claims against the vessel are in excess of 4er value, as a condition of the jurisdiction of this court to entertain the proceeding. Section 4289, Rev. St., provides that the act limiting ship-owners' liability shall not apply to vessels "used in rivers or inland navigation." Held, that the "East River," so called, is not a "river," but a mere gut or strait, and belongs to the "coast waters" of the country, as distinguished from "inland navigation;" and that navigation on the East river is therefore not included in the above exception.
SAME- SECTION 4289- EXCEPTION-" RIVERS "-" INLAND NAVIGATION"-EAST RIVER-COAST WATERS.
FERRy-BOATS-PRECAUTIONS AGAINST FIRE-POWERS OF STEAM-BOAT SPECTORS.
Under sections 4426 and 4470, Rev. St., the steam-boat inspectors may require ferry-boats to be provided with the same precautions against fire. so far as applicable, that are expressly provided in reference to any other steam vessels carrying passengers; and when the boat passes inspection on the basis of haVing a steam-pump provided in accordance with section 4471, the boat is bound to maintain it in the condition required by that section. Various sections of the Revised Statutes in regard to steam vessels considered in their application to ferry-boats. by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.