FORSOBNER fJ. BA.UMGA.RTEN
«(h"rcuit Oourt, 8. D. NeJU) York. March 16, 1886.) 1.
PATEN'T8 FOR INVENTIONS-GLASS SCAl,E-PANS FOR WEIGHING.
Letters patent No. 214,643, of April 22. 1819, to Charles .l<'orschner, for aD improvement in scale-pans for weighing, are void for want of patentable noyelty in the invention.
There is no invention in making a scale-pan of glass, with glass lugs made integral therewith, and suspending it by branching metal bows passing through holes in said lugs, glass and glazed porcelain scale-pans being old, and me· tallic scale-pans suspended on such branching bows being old.
PLEADlNGS-EvlDENCE-PRIOR USE AND PRIOR PUBLICATIONS.
Certain catalogues, features of the patent sued on, were·offered in evidence, although not set up m the answer. Held, that these circulars should be considered as evidence in support of allegations of prior knowledge and use b'y others, properly made in the answer, but not as prior publications describmg the invention, and constituting anticipations, of themselves, within the statute.
In Equity. R. B. McMa8ter, for plaintiff. Louis C. Raegener, for defendants.
WHEELER, J. This suit is brought upon patent No. 214,643, dated April 22,1879, and granted to the plaintiff for an improvement in scale-pans for weighing. The specification sets forth the scale-pans as "made entire of glass," with strong lugs, one on each side, opposite each other, with two holes in each for a suspending bow of metal, divided at each end into two branches, to be put through the two holes in each lug, and fastened there with nuts. The claim is for a Bcale. dish formed with extended lugs, each having two holes through it, in combination with double suspending bows passing down through the holes and secured beneath the same, substantially as specified. One of the defenses set up is want of patentable novelty. A scale-dish of glazed porcelain is shown to have been described in the Mechanic's Magazine, a printed publication, in 1836, volume 25, p. 23, as in use by a Mr. Juggins, a dealer in butter and cheese, in London; and the forming of scale-pans of "glass, or it may be porcelain," is set forth as part of the invention of Edward Dowling in his specification for an English patent, April 14, 1859. Metallic scale-pans, suspended on branching bows like those of plaintiff's patent, are shown to have been made, and on sale in this country, prior to the plaintiff's invention. This fact is shown, in part, by catalogues not set up in the answer, and objected to for that reason. They are considered, however, as evidence in support of allegations of prior knowledge and use by others properly made in the answer, and not as prior publications describing the invention, and constituting an1 Reported
by Charles C. Linthicum, Esq., of the Chicago bar.
FORSCHNER V. BAUMGARTEN.
ticipations, within the statute, of themselves. They appear to be properly in evidence for this purpose. The description of the scalepans of J uggins and of Dowling do not show the modes of attachment to the bales. The metallic pans suspended on branching bows are shown to have been attached by lugs soldered or riveted to the dishes through which the branches of the bows are put, and fastened with nuts. These bows, and the fastenings on them, are the same as those of the plaintiff's patent. The only difference between the lugs of the patent and those in use before is that those of the patent are extensions of the dish, while the others are fastened to the dish of the same material; and those of the patent are broad enough to include the two holes for the branches of the bow on each side, in each lng, while the others are single for each branch of the bow. The office of the lugs is merely to suspend the dish, and the usefulness and operation of the dish are not altered by the difference between a single lug large enough for the two holes and single lugs for each, for the two branches of the bow. The plaintiff had only to suspend a known glass dish by a known branching bow. An obvious method of doing that was by putting the branches of the bow through holes in the edges of the dish, or extensions of the edges. This is a wellknown way of suspension which any mechanic skilled in working the ID'l.terials would use or might use. If it was a wooden dish or a metallic one, a mechanic who was shown the dish, and the bale with branches and nuts for the ends of the branches, and who was put to suspend the dish on the bale, if it was wooden, and he had skill for making holes through wood, or it was iron, and he had skill for making holes through that, would, readily, by his- mechanical skill, make the holes, and put the branches of the bale through, and put on the nuts, and the dish would be suspended. And likewise, the dish being glass, a worker in glass, skilled to make holes in the edges of the dish through the glass, or to make a dish with the holes, would suspend it in the same manner. The plaintiff merely combined a known glass dish, with a known branching bow in substantially the same manner in which a metallic dish had been combined before, the difference being merely formal and mechanical. This does not appear to amount to such invention as to be sufficient to support a patent. Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 11 How. 248; Pearce v. Mulford, 102 U. S. 112; Hollister v. Benedict Manuf'g Co., 113 U. S. 59; S. C. 5 Snp. Ct. Rep. 717. The result is that the patent must be adjudged invalid. Let a decree be entered that the patent is invalid, and the bill dismissed, with costs.
THE MIN'NIE.1 THE DORIs.
and others v.
(District Oourt, D. Oonnecticut. February 13, 1886.)
COLLIBTON·-SUNKEN VESSEL RAISED AND REPAIRED-MEASURE OF DAMAGES.
When a vessel sunk in a collision is subsequently raised, and permanent repairs are both practicable and proper, but she was put into a better condition than before the disaster, the owners, if acting with promptness. are entitled to recover the cost of raising the vessel and cargo, and of necessary temporary repairs thereto, as well as the amount that it would have cost them to have put the vessel, her furniture, and fittings into as good and serviceable condition as she was before the sinking, and to a reasonable sum as demurrage for the time consumed, and also to compensation for any damage to the cargo, and to the gross freight thereon, less the charges which would have been necessarily incurred in earning it. The crew should be compensated for the loss of personal effects, but the sum awarded should be less than the cost price of the articles lost.
In Admiralty. The owners as well as the crew of a vessel sunk in a collision filed a libel against the respondents. The court held the respondents to be in fault, and ordered a reference to a commissioner to' assess damages. The vessel was promptly raised, and some money was expended in temporary repairs. Extensive permanent repairs and alterations were made, and she was put in a better condition than before the disaster, so that the amount expended was not a criterion of the actual injury. There was an insurance upon the hull of the vessel, which was paid, and the proceedings on the part of the owners of the vessel were virtually proceedings for the benefit of the underwriters. The joinder of the crew in the libel was for the purpose of recovering damages for the loss of personal effects. The commissioner in assessing damages allowed the libelants the cost of mising the vessel, and also the cost of temporary repairs. He further allowed them the sum that it would have cost them to put her into as good and serviceable condition as she was before the disaster, and also what it would have cost them to have furnished and refitted her over and above the amount and value of the furniture saved. 'rho commissioner likewise allowed demurrage for the time that it would have taken to have refitted her, the cost of raising her cargo, the damage thereto, the amount of freight earned at the time of the disaster, and the value of the personal effects of the crew, estimating the latter on the basis of the actual cost required to supply the places of the articles lost. The owners of the sunken vessel, the libelants, excepted because the commissioner did not allow them full freight. The
by Theodore M. Etting, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.