In both these devices, as I read the patents, the axis of each tooth lies in a vertical plane coincident with or parallel with the vertical plane which passes through the line of draught of the harrow; in both devices this vertical plane is not parallel with the vertical plane passing through either side of the rectangula.r plank or frame in which the tooth is inserted; and in both devices the axis lies in this vertical1>lane in such a way that (1) the angle between the axis and a horizontal line lying in the same plane is other than a right angle, and (2) the lesser angle between the axis and the horizontal line is on that side of the axis of the tooth which is opposite from the place towards which the harrow is intended to be drawn. This seems to be a full statement of the essential features of both devices, and it follows that there is no substantial difference between them. The -motion for preliminary injunction will therefore be denied and dismissed.
STEAM-GAUGE & LANTERN Co. and others v. MYERS MA.'NUF'G CO.l
(Oircuit Oourt, No 1.
July 26, 1886.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-KEROSENE LANTERNS.
Letters patent No. 104,318 and No. 151,703, to John H. Irwin, for kerosene lamps or lanterns, sustained; following Steam-gauge &': Lantern 00. v. Miller, 21 Fed. Rep. 514; and the defendant's lantern being essentially like the one involved in that case, held, that it infringed.
In Equity. Coburn cf; Thacher and E. S. Jenney, for complainants. Munday, Evarts cf; Adcock, for defendant. BLODGETT, J. This suit is brought to recover damages, and restrain the infringement of letters patent granted to John H. Irwin, June 14, 1870, No. 104,318, and letters patent granted to John H. Irwin, June 9, 1874, No. 151,703, both patents being for kerosene lamps or lanterns. These patents were fully considered by Judge SHIPMA.N in the case of Steam-gauge cf; Lantern Co. v. Miller, 21 Fed. Rep. 514, and the validity of the patents, in view of the state of the art, sustained. The defendant's lantern in this case is so essentiallv like the Miller infringing lantern in the case before Judge SHIPMAN that I can see no reason why, if the Miller lantern was an infringement, the lantern made by this defendant does not infringe these patents. Therefore, without discussing the merits of the patents, or the effect of infringement, further than to say that I am fully satisfied that the defendlantern does infringe these patents in its construction, mode of operation, and effect, I shall find the equities of this bill with, the complainant, and enter a decree for an accounting and injunction.
by Charles C. Linthicum, Esq., of the Chicago bar.
'II. UNION INS. CO.
BELL TELEPHONE CO. v.
PAN ELEOTRIO TELEPHONE CO.
«(!ircuit (Jourt, E. D. Pennsylvania.
WRIT AND PRoCESS-CORPORATION-SUBP<ENA-AGENT.
The court will set aside the service of a subprena upon an alleged agent when it appears, from depositions taken, that the person served was not the agent of the defendant.
In Equity. Sur motion to set aside the service of the subprena. The marshal returned, "served on the Pan Electric Telephone Co., by giving a true and attested copy thereof to Robert Klotz, treasurer of the Rogers Telegraph and Telephone Co., agents of said Pan Electric Telephone Co." The Pan Electric Company denied that tile Rogers Company were their agents, and moved that the service of the subprena be set aside. Depositions were taken, and, after thereon, the motion was granted. J. Warren Coulston, for the motion. Charles Howson, contra. THE COURT. And now, to-wit, this tenth day of February, A. D.
1885, after argument of respective solicitors, the court orders and de-
crees that the service of the subprena in equity in above case, and the return of the marshal thereto as follows: "and on the Pan Electric Telephone Co., by giving a true and attested copy thereof to Robert Klotz, treasurer of the Rogers Telegraph and Telephone Co., agents of said Pan Electric Telephone Co., "-be set aside.
ROMAINE and others
UNION INs. Co. and others.
«(Jircuit (Jourt, Tv. IJ. Tennessee. August 9,1886.)
WRIT AND PROCESS-SUBP<ENA SERVED OUTSIDE THE DISTRICT-JURISDICTION.
Service of a subprena outside the judicial district is unauthorized and ineffective as compulsory process; but since the party may voluntarilr. appear, and the court thereby acquire the right to proceed with the case, It is not a question of jurisdiction, unless it happen that the plaintiff and defendant are citizens of the same state, or are otherwise wholly disqualified to sue each other in the federal coux:ts, in which event it does, In those courts, become a matter pertaining to their jurisdiction. to which objection may be taken in any appropriate and convenient way; the mode being quite immaterial. But in those cases where the court may proceed upon a voluntary appearance, such a service is a mere matter of irregularity, and the proper practice to avoid a waiver thereof is to obtain an order of the court for leave to enter It special appearance with the clerk, upon an undertaking to submit to the further orders of the court, if the objection should not be sustained; and,
SAME-MOTION TO VACATE THE SERVICE-SPECIAL ApPEARANCE- WAIVER.