(Oircuit Court, D. Indiana. March 29.1886.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-INFRINGEMENT-MACHINES FOR MAltING PIPE ELBOWS. ,
The first, second, and sixth claims of letters 'patent No. 224,974, of February 24, 1880. to William A. Wheeler, for machines for making stove-pipe elbows. are infringed by a machine made in accordance with letters patent No. 234.191, of November 9,1880, to John P. 1001'. The third claim of the Wheeler patent was not infringed, because defendant used only three of the four elements of the combination; and the seventh claim was not infringed, because, if valid at all, it must be strictly construed and limited to the particular adjustment of parts described.
SAME-CONSTRUCTION OF CLAIM.
Although the defendants did not use a toggle-joint mechanism, which was an element of the claims held infringed. the court finds that what they did use Was an equivalent, which any skilled mechanic could have devised without the exercise of invention.
In Equity. O. P. Jacobs, for complainant. D. V. Burn' and Sullivan «Jones, for defendants.
WOODS, J. Action for infringement of the first, second, third, sixth, and seventh claims of letters patents No. 224,974, issued February 24, 1880, to the complainant, Wheeler, for improvements in machines for making stove-pipe elbows. These claims are as follows:
"(I) In a machine for forming circumferential crimps in the ends of sheetmetal pipes, an inside and a set of outside clamps, and a set of revolving formers, which are moved from and towards the central shaft by a toggle-joint mechanism, in combination with each other, substantially as specified. (2) In a crimping-machine, the combination of the toggle-joint, 0, sliding blocks, G, and revolving formers, H, operating substantially as specified. (3) In a crimping-machine, the hollow revolving shaft, C, carryinK the formers, and the ct:.ntral stationary rod or shaft, I, carryi ng the inside clamp, J, in combination with each other, substantially as specified." "(6) In a crimping-machine, a set of formers, H, H, which revolve both upon their own axes and about the central shaft, and are expanded and contracted by a toggle-joint mechanism, all SUbstantially as specified. (7) In a crimping-machine, a table, B, having a central orifice, of sufficient size to receive the end of the pipe, and also having under-side projections, b, b, to receive and support said pipe until clamped, in combination with a set of clamps, K, K, substantially as shown and specified."
The defense is, in effect, a denial of infringement, it being espe. cially alleged that the machine made and used by the defendants was constructed under and in accordance with letters patent No, 234,191, issued November 9, 1880, to the defendant John P. Ioor. The complainant's claims, it will be observed, are all for combinations,
Reported by Charles C. Linthicum, Esq., of the Chicago bar.
THE GWALlA'S CARGO.
and must be construed accordingly. The conclusion to which the court has arrived is that the defendants have infringed the first, seoond, and sixth claims, but not the third and seventh. The third claim is not infringed, because the defendants have used only three of the four elements of the combination; and the seventh, because, if patentable at all, it must be strictly construed, and limited to the particular adjustment of parts described. The defendants contend that they have not infringed the first, second, and sixth claims, because their maohine does not have the toggle-joint mechanism embraoed in each of those claims. But wbile this is so, I think tbe devioe wbioh tbe defendants have substituted for the toggle.joint meobanism must be regarded as an equivalent, whioh any mechanio of skill and experienoe could have devised, without the aid of inventive power or genius. The evidenoe does not show a license. Decree acoordingly.
THE GWALU's CARGO. l
(DisfJrict (Jourt, D. Ha8sachU8ett8. March 8, 1886.)
CARRIERS OF GOODS BY VESSEL-DAMAGE TO CARGO WmLE UNLOADING-LEAKAGE OF BALLAST TANKS.
The of a vessel was damaged during its discharge by water ,eaking from the ballast tanks into the hold. The tanks had been filled in order to steady the vessel. They had become strained during the passage. which was one of unusual severity. This circumstance was not known to the officers of .the vessel, and there was a lack of proper care in filling them. The consignee, in consequence of the damage. refused to pay full freight. The carrier attached the cargo, claiming exemption from liability for damage caused by "perils of the sea." Held, that as the damage arose from negligence, it was unnecessary to consider the exemption claimed; that the circumstances demanded, on the part of the carrier, extreme care; and that as little or no carE> had been used, the damage sustained by the cargo should be deducted from the freight money
In Admiralty. B. L. M. Tower, for libelants. F1'ederick Dodge, for claimants.
NELSON, J. This was a libel for freight against a cargo of sugar in hogsheads, brought to Boston from Cardenas and Caibarien, in Cuba, in the steam-sbip Gwalia. The Gwalia was an Englisb vessel, built of iron. Sbe was constructed with water.tight bulk-beads, and with water ballast tanks extending the' whole length of the ship fore and aft, except under the engine-room. The tops of the tanks were iron lliates riveted to the sides of the ship. Resting on the
Reported by Theodore M. EttinK. Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.